Consultation Paper CP 1/96
Funding Method for Teaching
To Heads of HEFCE-funded Institutions
Heads of DENI-funded Universities
Of interest to: those responsible for Funding and Finance
Reference CP 1/96
Publication Date July 1996
Response by Friday 25 October 1996
Enquiries to Mr Cliff Allan (0117 931 7013)
or Dr Shekhar Nandy (0117 931 7367)
Executive Summary
1. The Council needs to ensure that the funds it distributes for teaching make the best possible use of public money in providing for the learning experience of students. It also aims to encourage diversity, respond to the interests of employers and Government and promote quality in teaching and learning.
2. To establish whether it is meeting these aims, the Council has reviewed the current funding method for teaching, which has been in use for four years.
3. Following this review which included a period of extensive consultation, the Council has concluded that the present funding method for teaching has strengths and weaknesses. It has benefited higher education institutions by providing stability, but the varied levels of funding which apply to similar activities at different institutions could impact on the experience of students.
4. To address these problems the Council is proposing a new method for funding teaching, set out in this consultation paper. It suggests changes in the rate of funding, and in the distribution of students between institutions. It also invites views on whether the present separate stream of formula capital funding should be incorporated into recurrent funding.
5. The paper proposes that, between institutions, similar activities should be resourced at similar rates. Variations in these rates should only be based on previously determined factors.
6. Four basic rates of funding are proposed, with variations applying to a range of factors, including full-time and part-time provision, non-standard students, the requirements of small specialist colleges, and the special position of further education colleges where infrastructure costs are provided by the Further Education Funding Council (FEFC).
7. On student numbers, the paper proposes that institutions should bid for additional numbers on the basis of quality, demand, national need and regional need. Bids would be assessed by review panels established to reflect the broad geographical distribution of institutions funded by the Council.
8. These developments could have a considerable effect on individual institutions. They will need to be introduced carefully to avoid unmanageable change.
9. Changes could start to be implemented in the 1997-98 funding round, with the new method for funding teaching in full operation for the 1998-99 funding round.
Introduction
10. In December 1995 the Council issued Consultation Paper CP 2/95. This covered Coopers & Lybrand's evaluation report of the present method for funding teaching, and raised a number of questions about the future funding method. Extensive discussions took place at 15 regional seminars, with over 500 participants. In the light of these and the formal responses to CP 2/95, the Council now wishes to consult the sector and other interested bodies on the changes it proposes, and the proposed timetable for implementation. It plans to make a final decision in December 1996.
11. Both Coopers & Lybrand's review and the consultation revealed a strong consensus among institutions that the current method for funding teaching has been successful in unifying the former UFC and PCFC sectors, while maintaining stability. However, it has given rise to a number of anomalies and apparent inequities. The National Committee of Inquiry, chaired by Sir Ron Dearing, will take a wider look at the funding of HE, which may produce changes in three or more years' time. However, before then, the Council considers that its present funding method needs some changes.
Aims and Key Features
12. The aims of the proposed funding method are:
a. To make the best possible use of public money provided for higher education so as to enhance the learning experience for students.
b. To recognise and encourage diversity in the provision and delivery of higher education and in the range of students.
c. To respond to the interests of employers and the Government.
d. To promote quality in teaching and learning.
13. The key features of the method will be:
a. Openness. The funding method will be clear and public. The data on which allocations are based will be auditable and, wherever possible, public.
b. Predictability. The method and its parameters will be predictable, so that an institution knows how decisions it might take, and changes in its circumstances, will affect its funding.
c. Flexibility. The method will be flexible enough to respond to external policy changes, and particularly to developments in the Council's own policies.
d. Fairness. Differences in funding between institutions will be for good and justifiable reasons.
e. Efficiency. The funding method will impose as small a burden as possible on institutions consistent with the principles outlined above.
Changes to the Funding Method
14. Two principal aspects need to be considered:
a. The rate of funding.
b. The distribution of students between institutions.
The rate of funding
15. The present funding method has led to variations in Council funding for similar activity in different institutions. There are two main reasons for this. First, historical factors: the bodies which preceded the HEFCE (the DES, UGC, UFC, PCFC and local authorities) funded institutions at different rates for different reasons, some of which related to the varying costs of provision according to style and content. The Council inherited and maintained these rates and has not assessed the differences in the nature or relative costs of provision.
16. The second main reason for variation has been the different rates of growth in student numbers, primarily through the rapid recruitment of fees-only students in a number of institutions, partly in response to Government policy. Although this is the result of deliberate decisions by the institutions concerned, the varying rates of resource produce variations in the student experience.
17. The Council has decided that, between institutions, similar activities should be resourced at similar rates, and that significant variations from standard rates of resource should be based only on previously determined factors, such as mode of study and type of students.
A proposed model
18. It is proposed to establish four basic levels of resource. These resource levels will determine standard prices, and variations from these prices will be permitted for a variety of agreed factors. (See paragraphs 24 and 25 below.)
19. The four price groups are:
a. Clinical medicine, dentistry and veterinary science.
b. Laboratory-based.
c. Part laboratory- based.
d. Mainly classroom-based.
20. Each group will be identified with a collection of subjects. For example, Mathematics will be classed in the part laboratory-based group and Physics will be in the laboratory-based group with other high cost sciences and engineering.
21. To determine the standard price for each group, the Council will use information which reflects the expenditure patterns of institutions. The standard price covers both tuition fees (Fees for part-time students and other non award holders will be assumed because these are determined by institutions. These might be the equivalent proportion of the full-time fee.) and Council grant. This is to ensure that the relative price is equitable in terms of total resource.
22. The standard prices will reflect the relative costs as shown in the institutional financial records but may subsequently be modified to reflect policy priorities.
23. In each case, the price fixed will be the standard price for a full-time equivalent (FTE) undergraduate student. However, there are valid grounds for variations which the Council wishes to recognise in its funding. This can be achieved by identifying differences and attaching weights to them.
24. Weights will be attached to a number of student-related factors. Those proposed are:
a. Mode. Part-time students will attract a small additional weight, to recognise the additional costs of providing for them. On the other hand, distance-learners will be differentiated from other part-time students and given a lower weight to reflect their lower costs.
b. Student characteristics. The HEFCE's Advisory Group on Access and Participation recently reported on the activity undertaken by institutions to widen access to higher education.
It recognised the claim that it might cost more to provide for non-standard undergraduate students, particularly students with disabilities and many mature undergraduate students. These will attract a higher weight. Furthermore, the costs and benefits of providing for non-standard students will be recognised by a higher weight attached to undergraduate students with non-traditional entry qualifications and those from socio-economic groups III-V. These are all students who can be defined, counted and audited separately.
25. The total funding will then be adjusted by weights for special institutional factors. These factors will be in accordance with policy requirements and the special nature of certain types of institution. The following are proposed:
a. London institutions will be categorised as inner and outer London with weights reflecting the extra costs of each. This will replace the current arrangements for London, where additional allocations are made through non-formula funding, though the total amount provided will remain the same.
b. A weight will be applied to small but highly specialised colleges, such as music conservatoires, some art colleges and performing arts institutions, which incur relatively high costs. (See also the question on floor provision as it affects small institutions at paragraph 63.)
c. For FE colleges, where the FEFC is responsible for the infrastructure and non-staff related overheads, discounting weights will be applied according to the balance of HE and FE provision.
26. The factors to be recognised, and the weights attached to them, will be determined following consultation. An outline of how this model could be constructed is at Annex A.
27. In an increasingly modular system, it is likely that most students will be taught in more than one price group. Institutions will need to estimate for their full-time and part-time students what proportion of the FTE should be attributed to each price group. This process may be made easier as credit systems develop (whether institution-specific or nation-wide). In the meantime, for the purpose only of easing the introduction of the new funding method, the Council proposes to invite institutions to map their provision onto a new notional unit system. Thus, if the Council defines one year of full-time undergraduate study as 120 units, then institutions will be asked to say how many Council units were taken in each price group.
28. This will enable full-time and part-time students to be considered and funded together. However the distinction will still be important because: part-time students may attract a premium price (see paragraph 24); the present arrangements for mandatory awards and the payment of tuition fees are based on full-time student numbers; and the Government plans separately for full-time and part-time students.
29. There may be implications for the way the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) collects individualised data. These will be discussed between Council officers and the Agency.
30. Comments are sought in particular on:
a. The four price groups proposed.
b. The special institutional and student factors to which weights should be applied.
c. The proposal that institutions should report FTEs in each price group based on a unit system defined by the Council.
Outcomes
31. Such a funding model will enable the Council to identify which institutions have hitherto been underfunded and which overfunded. Their present core funding could be compared with the funding due under the model, and adjustments made over an agreed period. A degree of variation is envisaged - initially proposed at 5 per cent - and institutions outside this band will move to within it over a number of years.
32. Where the model indicates that unit funding at an institution should be increased, this could be achieved by increasing funds, or by reducing student numbers (which would increase the rate of resource per student), or possibly both. Any student numbers released in this way will be available for redistribution to other institutions. A strategy would be negotiated with those institutions most affected, to determine whether changes are made to funding allocations or to student numbers. Some of the factors listed in paragraph 45, might inform these negotiations. The review panels, discussed in paragraphs 42 and 43, could advise the Council on strategies.
Implications
33. A policy of resourcing similar activity at similar rates has implications for student numbers. To the extent that institutions were permitted to recruit additional fees-only students without grant, this would reduce their resource per student, and would run counter to the aim of introducing standard prices. On the other hand, public resources are cash-limited, and if the Council guaranteed a stated level of resource for each student, it could not fund more than a given number. It would also have difficulty if there were significant movement of students from cheaper to more expensive subjects.
34. However, it is a feature of the model that rates of resource should be permitted to vary within a narrow band. This would enable institutions to manage their student numbers without the Council needing to exercise detailed control of student numbers. For each institution, an average rate of standard resource would be determined by a process similar to that described at Annex A, normalised to take into account the mix of students by subject and by the other factors described. For each institution, the average rate of actual resource would also be calculated, by dividing the total grant plus fee income by the total FTE.
35. As a result of the convergence described in paragraphs 31-32, the average rate of actual resource for an institution would fall within the range ± 5 per cent of its average rate of standard resource. Both the average rate of standard resource and the average rate of actual resource will be recalculated each year. The average rate of standard resource for an institution would be calculated to take account of the Council decisions that affect it, including adjustments such as efficiency gains, negotiated changes and any additional funded students secured in the bidding process described in paragraphs 42-45 below.
36. In any year an institution would be free to increase or reduce its FTE student numbers, so long as the resulting average rate of actual resource per student remained within a band ±5 per cent of its average rate of standard resource. Such an arrangement would keep to a minimum the control the Council exerts over student numbers. However holdback or another penalty would be needed if institutions exceeded or fell short of their average rates of standard resource by more than 5 per cent. It would be possible to operate such a system with separate virement groups; though the more funding was differentiated in this way, the greater would be the control over numbers exerted by the Council. Separate virement mechanisms may be needed as now to protect science and engineering subjects.
37. A standard price-based mechanism would mean that any efficiency gain required of the sector would be applied equally across all institutions and not, as now, differentially according to their AUCF.
38 Comment is sought in particular on:
d. The proposal that funding of institutions should be within a band - initially proposed at ± 5 per cent - of the amount that they would receive under the standard rates of resource described in paragraphs 19 to 25.
e. The implications for the control of student numbers of applying standard resource rates, and the approach proposed to reduce the need for detailed control.
f. The proposal that any efficiency gain should be applied equally across all institutions.
Distribution of student numbers
39. The present method of funding rolls forward from one year to the next a large core of grant and the associated student numbers. However, because of the Government's policy of consolidation, the distribution of undergraduate student numbers between institutions was largely frozen three years ago. The present distribution is therefore an accident of history. Consequently the distribution of student numbers cannot be used to respond to student demand, or a changing environment, or national policies. For individual institutions the relative stability of a large core can provide a secure basis for innovation, but this is not so for the system as a whole. Moreover, when additional numbers have been available for distribution, the Council has allocated these to institutions on the basis of price alone, and without reference to other policy or institutional factors.
40. Therefore, to create a degree of movement in the sector, the Council proposes in future to base the distribution of whatever student numbers are available for allocation on bids from institutions. The Council is likely to have available for distribution the additional student numbers planned by the Government over the PES period. From 1996-97 to 1998-99 these may amount to 20,000 FTEs.
41. In addition, arising from the equalisation of the rates of resource between institutions described in paragraphs 31-32 above, some institutions will have to give up student numbers, which will be redistributed to others. The precise numbers available will not be known until the equalisation strategies for individual institutions have been negotiated (both for institutions yielding surplus numbers in order to increase rates of resource and those taking additional unfunded numbers in order to reduce them).
Bidding for additional student numbers
42. It is proposed that institutions should be invited to bid competitively for these additional student numbers. A mechanism will be needed to judge between competing claims. Review panels are proposed on the following basis:
a. One panel covering specialist colleges.
b. Four panels covering all other institutions, divided into four broad regional groupings.
A sixth panel may be necessary to cover FE colleges separately.
43. The membership of the panels will include senior staff who have institution-wide responsibilities in the type of institutions covered, lay members with interests in HE and specialist assessors where necessary. The Council will invite nominations for membership from institutions' representative bodies.
44. The additional student numbers available for distribution by each panel will be determined by the Council.
The basis for bidding
45. Institutions will bid for additional student numbers on the basis of:
a. Quality.
b. Student demand.
c. National policy.
d. Regional need.
e. Institutional mission and strategy, to the extent that it reflects a. to d. above.
Quality
46. Both the Scottish and Welsh funding councils have linked their quality assessment (QA) outcomes to funding by distributing additional funded numbers to institutions in areas of excellence. The present funding method in England does not include a link with quality unless the teaching of a subject has been assessed as unsatisfactory. This then triggers a process which can lead to the withdrawal of Council funding in that subject. This system will continue, but the Council also proposes to provide additional student numbers to institutions judged to be of high quality.
47. This could be achieved formulaically by creating a quality rating for the whole institution. The rating could be determined by aggregating the outcomes of the current QA method, possibly in combination with other measures, and would mean creating the concept of excellence/high quality for the purpose of allocating student numbers. Institutional excellence could be rated by averaging all scores achieved by an institution in units where it had been assessed.
48. It might be more straightforward to use the subject-based quality ratings instead. However, this would mean quality could be a factor in allocating student numbers only in subject-based competitions.
49. The approach proposed instead by the Council is for quality to be a general criterion to be taken into account by the panels established to allocate student numbers, complementing all the other factors. It would then be open to institutions themselves to make the case for high quality, bringing to bear whatever evidence they are able, including QA ratings and the outcome of their quality audits.
Demand
50. Additional student numbers could be allocated to institutions in relation to the level of student demand. Just as using quality as a factor would ensure that more students would benefit from high quality provision, so allocating additional numbers to institutions in high demand would ensure greater student satisfaction.
51. Measures of demand are not straightforward and include the following:
a. Ratio of applications to acceptances. The assumption here is that higher ratios reflect greater demand. However, low ratios may be due to factors outside an institution's control, such as the popularity of its subject mix and the market it serves (restricted by location, level and mode offered). They might also reflect the perceived difficulty of securing a place. Moreover, the demand measured should relate to the nature of the student body at that institution. The Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) could provide data, although these would relate solely to full-time and sandwich undergraduate students, and would not include any FE colleges or students who applied directly to institutions.
b. Past recruitment record. For 1996-97, the allocation of additional full-time science and engineering numbers was based on recent increases in new entrants and total numbers. Such a measure might be taken to reflect institutions' ability to benefit from additional numbers, and could be used more generally in the future.
c. Proportion entering through clearing. The lower the proportion of students who enter through clearing, the larger the proportion who have explicitly chosen the institution concerned. If this were reflected in the allocation of additional student numbers, it would increase the number of places at institutions in high demand. Again this could only be applied in respect of full-time undergraduates in higher education institutions.
52. As with quality, student demand could be reflected either in a formulaic way, or as a criterion for panels to take into account in considering competing bids. The Council proposes the latter approach since there is unlikely to be agreement about a single measure of student demand which could be used formulaically.
National policy, regional need, mission and strategy
53. The extent to which institutions respond to particular national priorities or market needs, or promote particular innovations, could also be relevant to allocating additional student numbers.
54. The Council will identify specific areas of national interest or need which it will prioritise when considering bids. These will be broad in nature and will relate to explicit Government and Council policies. Priorities proposed initially are:
a. Particular subjects, for example, science and technology.
b. National policy. For example, institutions might demonstrate strategies to promote and integrate core/transferable and enterprise skills in their courses, or to achieve the National Education and Training Targets.
c. Regional need in geographical areas poorly served by HE.
55. The Council could also consider how the additional numbers bid for could help achieve the institution's strategic objectives. Panels would have to assess an institution's plan for the purpose of allocating additional numbers. However, the Council would not approve institutions' strategies as such.
56. The Council will decide on the criteria for considering bids for additional numbers following comments on the above proposals.
57. To allow institutions to predict the distribution of student numbers and funding over a reasonable planning period, the Council proposes to invite bids for additional student numbers periodically - say every two or three years - rather than annually, though the numbers actually allocated would need to be reviewed annually in the light of the public expenditure settlements. This would allow institutions to make their plans, and would enable the Council to maintain its priorities for national need, over a reasonable period.
58. Comment is sought in particular on:
g. The proposal that the distribution of student numbers should in future be based on bids from institutions.
h. The bases for distributing additional student numbers.
i. The proposed approach to quality and demand factors.
j. The possible national and regional priorities to be taken into account by the Council in distributing additional student numbers.
k. The proposal that decisions on the distribution of student numbers should be made periodically, for example every two or three years.
Formula Capital Funding
59. The Council is considering whether formula capital funding should be retained as a separate grant or instead be rolled into recurrent funding. This would mean distributing the money for formula capital according to the Council's recurrent funding methods. This would be a logical development of the Council's decision to give institutions freedom to vire between their recurrent and formula capital funding from the academic year 1996-97.
60. Relevant considerations include:
a. The fact that formula capital funding is only a small percentage of formula funding (6 per cent in 1996-97). The planned reductions in the Council's indicative capital allocation mean that in future years the proportion is likely to decrease further.
b. Nearly all the sector's capital requirements will in future need to be financed from annual surpluses, reserves or private finance - either ordinary borrowing or PFI. Institutions' ability to pay will therefore depend on their current or accumulated income streams. Rolling formula capital allocations into recurrent funding simply recognises this reality.
c. Most formula capital funding relates to equipment, and much of this expenditure is in its nature close to recurrent expenditure.
61. Formula capital funding combines two grants which until 1995-96 were separate allocations: equipment and estate formula funds. Both equipment and estate formula funds are calculated according to formulae made up of three elements: a fixed floor provision, a teaching-related element, and a research-related element. In both formulae, the ratio of the teaching-related to research-related elements is 70:30. The floor elements are £11,000 in the case of equipment grant and £20,000 in the case of estate formula funding.
62. If the Council were to incorporate formula capital into recurrent funding, the money would need to be divided between teaching and research. The split could be in proportion to the T and R components of formula capita funding (70 per cent for teaching, 30 per cent for research), or in line with the current split for recurrent funding (roughly 78:22), or a compromise between the two (e.g. 75:25). Each element would then be allocated as part of the relevant recurrent funding model.
63. One way in which the formula capital allocations differ from the Council's recurrent funding methods is in the provision of floor funding. One option would be to include a floor provision in the T funding method, similar to the floor provision in the formula capital funding, to protect small institutions whose overheads are disproportionately high.
64. Comment is sought in particular on:
l. Whether formula capital funding as a separate funding stream should be abandoned and incorporated into recurrent funds.
m. If it is agreed that formula capital funding should be incorporated into recurrent funds, how to apportion between T and R.
n. Whether a floor provision element should be retained to protect small institutions.
Timing
67. The changes discussed above - in both the equalisation of price and the distribution of student numbers - would require time to implement fully. It is proposed that changes should be introduced over a period, beginning in the 1997-98 funding round.
66. The process to even out some of the disparities in funding rates could begin in the 1997-98 funding round, with the necessary changes managed over a number of years. Proposals on the nature and timing of changes will be considered by the HEFCE Board in December 1996. Allocation of additional student numbers by the method discussed in this paper is not expected before 1998-99
Comments
67. Comments and discussion are invited on the proposed changes to the method for funding teaching and the implementation timetable. Responses are requested in particular on:
a. The four price groups proposed.
b. The special institutional and student factors to which weights will be applied.
c. The proposal that institutions should report FTEs in each price group based on a unit system defined by the Council.
d. The proposal that funding of institutions should be within a band - initially proposed at ± 5 per cent - of the amount that they would receive under the standard rates of resource described in paragraphs 19 to 25.
e. The implications for the control of student numbers of applying standard resource rates, the approach proposed to reduce the need for detailed control.
f. The proposal that any efficiency gain should be applied equally across all institutions.
g. The proposal that the distribution of additional student numbers should in future be based on bids from institutions.
h. The bases for distributing additional student numbers.
i. The proposed approach to quality and demand factors.
j. The possible national and regional priorities to be taken into account by the Council in distributing additional student numbers.
k. The proposal that decisions on the distribution of student numbers should be made periodically, for example every two or three years.
l. Whether formula capital funding as a separate funding stream should be abandoned and incorporated into recurrent funds.
m. If it is agreed that formula capital funding should be incorporated into recurrent funds, how to apportion between T and R.
n. Whether a floor provision element should be retained to protect small institutions.
Responses
68. Responses should be sent by 25 October 1996 to:
Cliff Allan
HEFCE
Northavon Hous
Coldharbour Lane
Bristol BS16 1QD
Annex A
Illustrative Calculation of Total Resource
1. The table illustrates how the funding allocations might be calculated using the proposed model. The Council will decide the precise details after consultation.
Price Groups
2. The Council proposes to establish four price groups and a standard rate of resource for each. Each group will be identified with a collection of subjects.
3. The four price groups are:
Group 1: Clinical medicine, dentistry and veterinary science.
Group 2: Laboratory-based (for example Chemical Engineering, Physics).
Group 3: Part laboratory-based (for example Education, Mathematics).
Group 4: Mainly classroom-based (for example Humanities)
Full-time Equivalents
4. Instead of basing funding on student numbers in each of the price groups, the proportion of a student's FTE in each of the price groups will be used. It should be noted that the price groups are not collections of qualification aims. It is possible to have two students with the same qualification aim but different distributions across the price groups as shown in the example below.
Weights
5. The Council proposes to take into account differences in types of students and institutions in determining grants.
Student Weights
6. Different student types will be weighted differently. The factors which will be recognised and the weights attached to these factors will be determined following consultation. The example shows weights for part-time and non-standard FTEs.
Institutional Weights
7. These weights would be applied to the total FTEs to recognise factors which apply to institutions rather than students. The example shows factors for London extra costs and different types of institution.
Resource
8. The total resource will be the sum of grant and fees. Fees for part-time students and other non award holders will be assumed because these are determined by institutions. These might be the equivalent proportion of the full-time fee.
9. The standard total resource is calculated by weighting the FTEs in each price group according to student and institutional factors and then multiplying these by the standard price.
Calculation of the Total Resource for an Inner London University
(This is best viewed with a browser which supports tables; a comma-separated file is also available.)The weights and prices shown are illustrative, not indicative.
Unweighted FTEs
| Price Group | Full-time | Part-time | Total unweighted FTE | ||
| Basic Rate FTE | Non-standard Undergraduate FTE | Basic Rate FTE | Non-standard Undergraduate FTE | ||
| 1 | 100 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 120 |
| 2 | 200 | 20 | 80 | 0 | 300 |
| 3 | 300 | 20 | 120 | 10 | 450 |
| 4 | 500 | 60 | 410 | 30 | 1000 |
| Total | 1100 | 110 | 620 | 40 | 1870 |
Student Weights
| Full-time | Part-time | ||
| Basic Rate FTE | Non-standard Undergraduate FTE | Basic Rate FTE | Non-standard Undergraduate FTE |
| 1.00 | 1.05 | 1.05 | 1.10 |
FTE Weighted for student factors
| Price Group | Full-time | Part-time | Total Weighted FTE | ||
| Basic Rate FTE | Non-standard Undergraduate FTE | Basic Rate FTE | Non-standard Undergraduate FTE | ||
| 1 | 100 | 10.5 | 10.5 | 0.0 | 121.0 |
| 2 | 200 | 21.0 | 84.0 | 0.0 | 305.0 |
| 3 | 300 | 21.0 | 126.0 | 11.0 | 458.0 |
| 4 | 500 | 63.0 | 430.5 | 33.0 | 1026.5 |
| Total | 1100 | 115.5 | 651 | 44.0 | 1910.5 |
Institutional Weights and Total Resource
| Price Group | Weighted FTE | Institutional Weights | Price | Total Resource | |
| Inner London | Specialist College | ||||
| 1 | 121.0 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 5000 | 665,500 |
| 2 | 305.0 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 3000 | 1,006,500 |
| 3 | 458.0 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 2500 | 1,259,500 |
| 4 | 1026.5 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 2000 | 2,258,300 |
| Total | 2378.6 | 5,189,800 | |||
For each price group, resource = weighted FTE x institutional weights x price.