Report 01/09

HESA 1999-2000 derived statistics for funding allocations and monitoring

Read on-line

Executive summary

Order HEFCE 01/09

Copies of the full report for downloading are large files, and may take a long time to print out. Readers may therefore prefer to have a free hard copy of the document, available from HEFCE publications.

Download

Report

[ MS Word 394K | Zipped MS Word 78K | PDF 586K | Zipped PDF 571K ]

Executive summary

Purpose

1. This document describes how we will use the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) 1999-2000 individualised student record to:

• monitor aggregate returns made to the HEFCE
• inform funding for 2001-02
• produce some regional analysis.

2. This document also outlines the procedures we will adopt where our monitoring process identifies significant differences between aggregate and individualised returns. We believe this exercise helps us, and institutions, to better understand the data supplied to HESA and ensures that higher quality more consistent data are delivered to both HESA and the HEFCE.

3. The data included in the reconstruction of the Higher Education Students Early Statistics survey 1999 (HESES99) from the HESA record will form the basis of calculating premiums based on the following:

• full-time mature undergraduate students
• the neighbourhood types of students
• students receiving a disabled students allowance.

These premiums will be used in the funding allocations for 2001-02.

4. Annex A gives full details of the methods used in generating the comparisons, including details of where assumptions have been made due to poor fit between the data collected on the HESES99 survey and that supplied to HESA. In addition, the code used to generate the comparisons can be found on our web-site, www.hefce.ac.uk under 'Learning and Teaching', 'Data collection'.

Franchised data

5. In HEFCE 00/55 we published details of franchised students elicited from the HESA 1998-99 return. We are providing information on franchised students from the HESA 1999-2000 return to enable institutions to check that it is accurate and suitable for publication. We expect to publish this information during 2001.

Campus data

6. We are providing summary campus information to enable institutions to check that it is accurate and suitable as the basis for use in regional analysis publications.

Performance indicators

7. A consultation document, including draft performance indicators (PIs) based on HESA data from 1999-2000 and earlier, will be sent to institutions after Easter. This is the third year we will publish PIs and we expect significant improvements in the quality of HESA data on previous years. In 'Consultation on performance indicators' (HEFCE 00/18) we clearly stated our expectation that the number of institutions amending their HESA data following this year's PI consultation would be minimal (see paragraphs 19-21 of HEFCE 00/18).

8. Details of the methodology and fields used in producing the PIs published in 2000 were given in HEFCE 00/18. The methodology and fields used in the 2001 PI publication are not expected to change. Institutions are therefore urged to take this opportunity to check data that will be used in the production of PIs to ensure that errors can be corrected in time to inform the publication of PIs. Where errors in HESA data affecting PIs are identified, institutions should contact Judy Akinbolu on 0117 931 7110 or e-mail j.akinbolu@hefce.ac.uk at the earliest opportunity.

Allocation of student load to academic cost centres

9. As part of our commitment to monitoring data used in funding we are currently developing a system for monitoring the allocation of student load to academic cost centres. Because of the way activity is allocated to academic cost centres different subjects may be reported to different cost centres in different institutions. However, over the institution as a whole we would expect the net effect of these variations to be small. Where we identify institutions whose allocations vary significantly from the norm we will include additional data with the data from this exercise seeking fuller details of the rationale used in assigning activity to cost centres. In future years we hope to include full details of this monitoring within this exercise.

Key points

10. Where we identify significant differences in the comparison of HESA data to HESES99, we will write to the institutions concerned and ask for an explanation.

11. If the data remain unreconciled, we may audit both sets of data to arrive at agreed figures. Any amendments to data following this exercise may result in retrospective adjustments to funding.

12. If institutions are concerned about the suitability for publication of franchised or campus data they should contact Thomas Jackson by 6 April 2001.

13. All institutions are advised to check the data quality of fields used in the production of PIs in conjunction with checks made as part of this exercise and ahead of the PI consultation which will be sent to institutions after Easter.

14. All institutions are invited to comment on the methods described in Annex A or in the SAS code.

Action required

15. Where we require a response it should be sent to Anthony Ryan no later than 6 April 2001.