Report 00/46

Evaluation of the 1996-99 HEFCE/DENI disability special initiative

A report by the Higher Education Consultancy Group (THECG) and the Commonwealth Higher Education Management Service (CHEMS)

Read on-line

Download

Evaluation of the 1996-99 HEFCE/DENI disability special initiative

The report
[ Word Document 382K | Zipped Word 98K | PDF 303K | Zipped PDF 262K]

Contents

Foreword

The Council aims to encourage institutions to increase access, secure equal opportunities, and maximise achievement for all who can benefit from higher education. This involves taking into consideration the different learning and support needs of a diverse range of students, including students with disabilities.

Between 1996-97 and 1998-99, the HEFCE and DENI funded more than 30 projects which aimed to develop high-quality provision for students with disabilities, and to increase the participation in HE of students with all types of disability. Towards the end of the three-year period, we commissioned this evaluation to consider how far the initiative had met its aims. This report describes the impressive work which has taken place in the HE sector, and outlines some important lessons for the future.

We have been able to feed the findings into the new initiative to improve provision for disabled students, which was announced in early 1999. Nearly 50 three-year projects started at the beginning of 2000, supported by the National Disability Team (based at Coventry University). We wish them well in their work.

This evaluation will be valuable to those working with students with disabilities. We hope it will also be of interest to all those working in higher education, who will need to take account of the needs of an increasingly diverse range of students. We will consider carefully how to take forward the recommendations of this report, to ensure that we are doing as much as we can to enable institutions to support all students in their learning experience.

Sir Brian Fender

Chief Executive, HEFCE

1      Executive Summary

1.1      This report evaluates the HEFCE/DENI 1996-97 to 1998-99 special initiative to 'encourage institutions to develop high quality provision for students with disabilities, and to increase the participation in higher education of students with all types of disability' - the SLDD initiative. Its specific objectives were to: encourage wide dissemination of good practice; build on the momentum of the previous special initiatives; and encourage collaborative ventures. The SLDD initiative provided £6 million in funding over the three years, and from the 85 institutional bids received following the issue of HEFCE Circular 9/96 in July 1996, 31 were selected for funding by HEFCE on the recommendation of the SLDD Advisory Group, and a further one by DENI.

1.2      The SLDD initiative was supported by a small HEFCE secretariat based in Bristol, and by a geographically dispersed national co-ordination and development team - eQuip - which had an administrative centre at Coventry University. A preliminary report was produced for the Council in September 1999 on the operation of this co-ordination and development function in order to assist HEFCE with the retendering arrangements for the new 'Improving Provision for Disabled Students' initiative.

         The Effectiveness of the SLDD Initiative

1.3      This report was produced by the Higher Education Consultancy Group (THECG) and the Commonwealth Education Management Service (CHEMS). It evaluates the effectiveness of the SLDD initiative in two main ways: an assessment of the extent to which projects have met their objectives, and (insofar as it is possible to judge) the impact of the initiative as a whole on the higher education sector. Available data suggest that most projects have met the majority of their objectives, with some being particularly successful, and a small number of others having difficulties. Overall we are impressed by the claimed impact of many projects, and the changes to the way that disability issues are now treated in some institutions hosting projects. An important issue here is related to the fact that a number of the projects were based on enhancing practice, and located within student services settings where relatively small sums of additional resource could serve as a very significant stimulus to activity. Such a location for projects makes implementation and sustainability much simpler than is often the case, as it is closely related to the direct professional responsibilities of student services staff.

1.4      There is less evidence of impact outside the immediate environment operated by student service providers (for example, in academic departments), although, in general, the overall opinion of those involved is that the initiative has been making a significant impact on the sector. However, not all higher education institutions have received - or sought - funding, and many institutions are likely to have been largely unaffected by the SLDD initiative, except for the very real benefits of networking and information sharing for those professionally involved in working with students with disabilities. Visits to a sample of projects broadly confirm this view: a great deal of dedicated professional activity taking place within specific areas, whilst much still needs to be done to encourage appropriate change in both behaviour and operations within institutions as a whole.

1.5      The adoption of project outcomes to enhance provision for students with disabilities has been assisted by external pressure on institutions caused by changes in legal and regulatory frameworks including:

• The removal of the means test in relation to the Disabled Students Allowance (DSA), and the extension of eligibility for the DSA to part-time and postgraduate students thus reducing previous financial barriers to study for many students.
  
  
• The introduction of additional funding for institutions recruiting students with disabilities as part of HEFCE's widening participation initiative.
  
  
• Institutional implementation of the recommendations of the recent base-line survey on good practice in disability provision, and the adoption of the QAA code of practice for students with disabilities.
  
  
• The recent recommendation of the Disability Rights Task Force that all education providers should be subject to new legislation providing equal access for students with disabilities.

1.6      Notwithstanding the general success of the SLDD initiative, a small number of problems have limited the effectiveness of some projects and raised operational issues for the Council to consider: two projects have had difficulty in meeting their objectives and run the risk of providing poor value for money; a number of projects started late largely because of difficulties in recruiting staff; support for projects from senior staff within host institutions is reported as being variable (although in some cases good); and, in a small number of cases, whilst the immediate environment in which projects were located was supportive, considerable difficulties were faced in working more broadly within institutions, particularly in some academic departments.

1.7      So far as the assessment of one of the broader aims of the SLDD initiative is concerned, no accurate data exist to assess the extent to which the enrolment of students with disabilities is correlated either with particular project outcomes, or with those institutions hosting projects. For the first time, in the current year the Council is collecting data on students claiming DSAs as a basis for allocating institutional funding, and these data will serve as a proxy measure for the number of students with disabilities within higher education. Although HESA has previously collected data on disability these were based on self-assessment by students and is not robust (unlike DSA data which are based on an individual assessment). It follows that no comparable data are available for previous years, and it is therefore impossible to assess statistically any contribution of the SLDD initiative to increasing participation rates in higher education.

         Value for Money

1.8      The evaluation reviews value for money and reaches a positive conclusion overall on the benefits and outcomes of the SLDD initiative. For a relatively small investment, considerable gains have accrued. The Council will, however, wish to consider carefully the value for money of any further initiatives following its new programme 'Improving Provision for Disabled Students'. This provides an important dissemination element to inform the sector further, and also to encourage provision in those institutions where little activity currently exists. When that is complete, the case for a further initiative cannot be assumed, and the balance between institutions resourcing disability provision from their own funds and continuing HEFCE special support should be revisited.

         The Management and Co-ordination of the SLDD Initiative

1.9      In a survey of project holders we sought to obtain data on the quality of service and support provided to projects both by those HEFCE officers responsible for the SLDD initiative, and by the eQuip team. From those who have had contact with the Council or eQuip we received generally favourable comments, and it is clear that the eQuip team have been effective and energetic in establishing the co-ordination and development function in circumstances that were initially difficult. For example, they were appointed several months after the initiative began. Moreover, a considerable number of changes have recently taken place in the priorities accorded to provision for students with disabilities, and this process of rapid change has exerted additional pressures on all those involved in the management and co-ordination of the initiative.

1.10     The report reviews the management and co-ordination of the SLDD initiative and draws attention to a number of issues, some of which were first identified in the earlier preliminary report. We welcome the fact that many of these have been acted upon by HEFCE in implementing revised co-ordination arrangements for the new 'Improving Provision for Disabled Students' initiative (see Appendix C).

1.11     Two issues are of particular significance: the importance of a co-ordinating team visiting all projects, and the extent to which they should explicitly seek to 'add value' to projects and play a quality assurance role. So far as the former is concerned, with the support of the SLDD Advisory Group, eQuip decided to visit as a priority the more structurally complex projects (such as collaborative projects) as well as visiting projects that were reported to be experiencing difficulties. As such the team did not visit all projects, and instead emphasised supporting projects through distance support, publications, and running events to produce 'horizontal' co-ordination between projects, as well as providing guidance on generic areas such as evaluation, embedding and project management. Although this approach provided valuable support, the report concludes that the decision not to visit all projects was a mistake and that the Advisory Group should not have agreed to it. Visiting projects should therefore be a priority for the new National Disability Team (NDT) for the 'Improving Provision for Disabled Students' initiative.

1.12     So far as the second issue is concerned, this evaluation raises a major issue about the extent to which the primary role of a co-ordinating team is to support projects to meet their original objectives, or whether it should seek explicitly to add value to projects including undertaking some quality assurance role. This question applies to other initiatives as well. The 'horizontal' co-ordination between projects encouraged by the eQuip team was appropriate for the former purpose, but we came across a number of projects which, although undertaking good work and effective in their own terms, would have been capable of greater achievements if appropriate external advice and stimulus were regularly available. The provision of such support raises a number of issues about the nature, role and experience of co-ordinating teams, and there is a need for clear articulation of Council policy on this.

         Future Issues

1.13     The report identifies a number of operational lessons for the future, some of which have already been adopted by HEFCE where they were raised in the Phase One report. In addition, in Chapter 10 several policy-related issues highlighted by the evaluation are identified for HEFCE to consider. These include the need for:

• Ensuring a more integrated and 'joined up' strategy between initiatives (for example, disability programmes, the Fund for the Development of Teaching and Learning (FDTL), widening participation), in order to avoid the danger of them being seen as separate activities.
  
  
• The provision of strong leadership by national bodies in the area of disabilities in order to help institutions meet new legal and regulatory requirements, including providing an information and training strategy to ensure that all institutions and staff are fully aware of their new responsibilities.
  
  
• Additional research and commissioned work to provide better management and planning information to guide disability provision.
• Ensuring that institutional funding to support disability provision is actually spent by universities and colleges for the purpose for which it is allocated.
  
  

1.14     In some of these areas, and also in relation to the specific issues addressed in the report, HEFCE are already taking action, for example, through the revised co-ordination arrangements for the new NDT team. In addition, it will be important for the new UK-wide Learning and Teaching Support Network (LTSN), to ensure effective integration between disability provision for students and the development of teaching and learning activity, both nationally and institutionally.

1.15     The 1996-99 SLDD initiative has been followed by a further three-year programme 'Improving provision for disabled students', providing £2 million a year (£6 million in total) to support 50 projects. The programme is supported by the National Disability Team, based at Coventry University. Further details are available at http://www.natdisteam.ac.uk