Mainstreaming HEFCE
Dance and Drama Award
funding
B9/10
Agenda item 10
28 January 2010
Issue
1.
Proposal to mainstream the funding provided for the Dance and Drama Awards
(DaDA) scheme.
Recommendation(s)
2.
The Board is invited to:
a.
Agree to mainstream £3,597,810 of DaDA funding of which £741,829 would
be rolled into the institution-specific targeted allocation for Conservatoire for Dance
and Drama and Central School of Speech and Drama with effect from 2010-11.
Timing of Decision
3.
An early decision is required so that we can inform the institutions of the changes
to grant for the academic year 2010-11. There is also a specific case with the University
of the Arts London which requires a decision to be made in January to inform the
requirements of their fit-out contract for the performance space at the King’s Cross
development.
Further Information
4.
From Kate McAlister (0117 931 7329, [email protected]) or Derek Hicks
(0117 931 7460, [email protected]).
Background
5.
The Dance & Drama Award (DaDA) scheme was set up in 1998 to support
talented students to undertake training in performance at both FE and HE levels. HEFCE
has been administering the HE element of the scheme on behalf of the as was DfES
since 1999. Since the inception of the scheme, there has been a migration of
predominantly drama providers to HE and the creation of a new HEFCE Conservatoire,
which has brought 1000+ FTE places into the maintained sector. In 2002 the DfES
agreed that the HE element of the scheme would be transferred to the HEFCE funding
baseline with effect from 2003-04 to fit more generally with the funding approach for HE.
To bring this in line with our mainstream teaching funding method, we decided that the
most appropriate way to allocate funding was through a competitive process broadly
similar to previous HEFCE ASN competitions. The overarching purpose of this
competition was to provide funding for high quality, vocationally-oriented dance and
drama in private providers, via connected higher education institutions. In January 2004
the Board agreed the allocation and funding recommendations made by the DaDA
advisory panel chaired by Dame Janet Ritterman. Since these changes were agreed,
provision for DaDA funding has been allocated on the same basis since 2004-05.
Discussion
6.
The HE element of the scheme currently funds just over 500 student places
amounting to circa £3.6m. The scheme provides places in private dance and/or drama
schools via indirect funding through connected higher education institutions. A list of
these institutions and the funding that is provided is illustrated in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Current DaDA provision
Lead institution
Conservatoire for Dance and Drama
Conservatoire for Dance and Drama
Conservatoire for Dance and Drama
University of Surrey
London South Bank University
University of the Arts London
Central School of Speech and Drama
Private provider
Central School of Ballet
LAMDA
LAMDA and Central School of Ballet
Royal Academy of Dance
Italia Conti Academy
London Studio Centre
Webber Douglas
2009-10
Headcount
20
87
107
75
85
195
60
522
2009-10
Allocation
200,000
870,000
1,070,000
292,320
322,405
1,560,000
402,720
3,647,445
Including
efficiency
saving
197,278
858,161
1,055,439
288,342
318,018
1,538,771
397,240
3,597,810
7.
The environment in which DaDA funding is allocated is now very different both in
terms of the number and status of private providers. Whilst in 2004-05 there were nine
private providers, since then five of the providers have merged with their HEI, one is
planning to merge from 2011 (London Studio Centre) and one provider has moved over
to the FE DaDA scheme. This means that from 2011 there will only be two free-standing
private providers, Royal Academy of Dance and Italia Conti. The changing status of the
DaDA provision set within the context of broader issues relating to the administrative
burden of allocating this funding outside the mainstream block grant has brought into
question whether this funding method remains fit for purpose. We have informally
discussed proposals to change the way we allocate DaDA funding with each of the HEIs
involved in the scheme and there is a strong consensus to bring this funding in line with
the mainstream block grant. This would reduce the administrative burden both on the
HEIs involved and on HEFCE and would make the funding less vulnerable to further
efficiency savings by bringing it into the mainstream. Changing the way we allocate this
funding would also be timely as it was indicated to all the providers that the funding
arrangements would be subject to review as part of wider changes to our funding method
more generally.
8.
An options review has been undertaken and informal discussions held with the
institutions affected, the two free-standing private training providers, BIS and relevant
HEFCE stakeholders. This work has concluded that the most viable option would be to
mainstream the funding within the block grant. This paper sets out two variants on how
this funding could be mainstreamed and the implications of making these changes. We
have considered other options and reported them to CEG.
Mainstream provision for DaDA funding
9.
In considering the two options, we have made the following assumptions:
a. Currently the DaDA students are not returned within HESES and would therefore
need to be included within these returns. Students would be returned within price
group C as UG, FT. This is in line with the funding we provide for similar types of
activity in the performing arts across the rest of the sector
b. In rolling this funding into the mainstream this funding would be subject to
inflationary uplift
c. We will not allow institutions to make a case for returning provision in price group
B
d. We will require institutions to migrate if they are outside the tolerance band.
However, in making these changes, we should agree migration trajectories in
consultation with the institution and we may wish to consider cases for
migration/transition funding or extending the contract range for special cases
e. These students already attract student support so there should be no implication
for BIS or the institution in terms of the cap on student numbers.
Option 1a: Mainstream all provision
10.
The first option would be to roll the total amount of funding we provide to each
institution into their block grant and to adjust their FTE baseline accordingly. This would
have the effect of moving institutions within their tolerance band as outlined in option 1a
in Table 2 below. The strengths and weaknesses of this approach are broadly
summarised below.
11.
Strengths:
a.
This approach is aligned with the drive to simplify our funding method and
make it more transparent and efficient
2
b.
This would make the total funding for DaDA more stable and less vulnerable
to further efficiency savings, and would enable the institutions to plan and manage
this flow of funding more effectively
c.
For three out of the six institutions this transfer would not result in them
moving outside their tolerance band – London South Bank University (LSBU),
University of Surrey and Central School of Speech and Drama (CSSD).
12.
Weaknesses:
a.
This would move two institutions considerably outside their tolerance band –
Conservatoire for Dance and Drama (CDD) and University of the Arts London
(UAL).
b.
We would require CDD and UAL to migrate and recruit additional students
with no additional funding which could pose severe difficulties in terms of the
institution’s financial sustainability. UAL are already considerably outside their
tolerance band following changes to their targeted allocation arising from the
Review of Exceptional Funding (REFI).
c.
In returning provision within price group C, there could be a funding gap in
terms of the cost of the training which could bring questions of affordability into
play. Assuming an approximate amount of £8k is provided per student [£5k in
HEFCE funding plus £3k in student fees] this only presents a problem for CDD
which currently receives £10k per fte.
Option 1b: Mainstream plus use existing institution-specific targeted
allocations
13.
The second variant on mainstreaming would be to roll the total amount of DaDA
funding into the block grant for three of the institutions, as with option 1a, and then to
allocate an element of the funding via the institution-specific targeted allocation for two
institutions where this already exists. This would apply to CDD and the CSSD and would
have a more favourable effect on their position within the tolerance band as outlined in
Table 2.
14.
Strengths:
a.
This option would provide a more affordable solution for four out of the five
institutions affected:
i.
This would mean that CDD and CSSD remained within the contract
range
ii.
There would be no change from Option 1a for LSBU and the University
of Surrey as these institutions would also remain within their contract range.
b.
This option supports the outcomes arising from REFI where both CDD and
CSSD have already made a strong case to maintain their institution specific
targeted allocation.
c.
Providing funding through the existing institution-specific funding stream
would avoid the issue of there being a funding gap between price group C
provision and the cost of the training for CDD.
3
15.
Weaknesses:
a.
There does not appear to be a precedent set to whether a differentiated
approach can be taken to the same funding stream. For example, in providing
some of the provision via a targeted allocation, this could support the notion that
elements of this funding for CDD and CSSD incur additional costs or provide
additional public value. We currently have no information to support this notion
b.
This does not solve the problem of UAL’s position in the tolerance band as
they remain considerably outside
c.
The funding provided via the institution specific targeted allocation for CDD
and CSSD would not be guaranteed and would be reviewed as part of REFI in 3 to
5 years. We might expect CDD and CSSD to make a case for providing funding in
this way at this stage.
Table 2: Implications of mainstreaming (assuming price group C, FT, UG, standard length
Current position
FTE
CDD
Surrey
LSBU
UAL
CSSD
Total
Funding
107 1,055,439
75 288,342
85 318,018
195 1,538,771
60 397,240
Option 1
Mainstream total amount of funding
Tolerance FTE
band
6.9%
-3.8%
2.2%
10.1%
0.8%
107
75
85
195
60
Funding in Tolerance
mainstream band
1,055,439
288,342
318,018
1,538,771
397,240
18.2%
-3.8%
2.1%
11.2%
4.7%
522 3,597,810
Option 1b
Mainstream + use targeted allocation
FTE
107
75
85
195
60
Funding in Funding in Tolerance
mainstream targeted
band
allocation
455,455
288,342
318018
1,538,771
255,395
2,855,981
599,984
0
0
0
141,845
741,829
6.1%
-3.8%
2.1%
11.2%
0.7%
Implications for institutions and the sector
16.
We have consulted informally with each of the institutions involved and they are
all supportive of the proposal to mainstream this funding. In considering the two variant
options, it is evident that option 1b would have the most favourable funding outcome for
four out of the five institutions in terms of the impact on their position within the contract
range and the need to migrate. CDD and CSSD are fully supportive of an approach which
would roll elements of the DaDA funding into their institution-specific targeted allocation.
17.
The Board should be mindful that we have already agreed a migration trajectory
for UAL to move back within the tolerance band by 2011-12. The institution is progressing
well against its targets and recently reported at an institutional visit in December that it
has already migrated back to a position of 7.2 per cent.1 Rolling this funding into the
mainstream grant would move the institution further outside their contract range by an
additional 1.1 per cent and would require the institution to recruit an additional circa 125
FTEs. Whilst the institution is supportive of the proposed changes and understand the
implications of moving further outside their contract range, we would expect to discuss
the implications of this change with the institution and review the migration path that has
1
Following verification of the institution’s HESES return, the figures contained within Table 1
and 2 of this report would need to be updated.
4
been set. For example, we could consider providing an extended contract range as we
did for Birmingham City University or provide migration funding over a certain timescale.
We would also need to ensure that in agreeing a new migration path, that the institution
would not be adversely affected by the cap on student numbers and subject to potential
holdback. Once an approach has been agreed, we would plan to discuss the implications
of the proposals within this paper with each of the institutions including any requirement
for migration.
18.
We have also considered the impact these changes would have on the private
training providers. The Royal Academy of Dance has a long-standing relationship with
the University of Surrey and therefore we are confident of the continued commitment of
this connected institution partnership. We have also discussed these proposals with
London Studio Centre and Italia Conti and they understand the implications of the
approach and are broadly supportive. As indicated above, UAL plan to merge with
London Studio Centre and use the additional performance space being developed at the
current King’s Cross development for which we have provided SDF support. We are also
currently supporting Italia Conti in establishing a new HEI partner and they are fully
aware of these proposals and the timescale for implementation. They also understand
that these changes would need to be taken into account in establishing a new connected
institution partnership. LSBU are also mindful that their current DaDA provision would be
transferred to a new HEI as a result of terminating their partnership with Italia Conti.
19.
The Board should also be aware that in agreeing to take on the DaDA funding
scheme, HEFCE did not make a commitment to the providers but to ensuring that this
sort of vocational provision was made available. The background to this initiative was
outlined to the Board in January 2004 and demonstrated the positive impact of the
scheme in creating over a 1000 new places and therefore almost doubling the number of
public funded HE places available compared to 2001. Furthermore, whilst there is
currently no policy imperative to support this proposal, there is strong evidence of the
very high student demand for these types of places (typically ten or more applications for
every place). The benefits of the scheme have also been strongly and widely articulated
both from the students and from very positive employer feedback.
Recommendation: The Board is invited to agree to mainstream £3,597,810 of
DaDA funding of which £741,829 would be rolled into the institution-specific
targeted allocation for Conservatoire for Dance and Drama and Central School of
Speech and Drama with effect from 2010-11.
Financial implications
20.
The financial implications are minimal as the proposed changes to grant outlined
in this paper will not incur any real term cash increase. There will be a small cost
attached to transferring the £3,597,810 funding into mainstream as this would need to be
uplifted for inflation in subsequent academic years.
5
Risk implications
21.
The risks associated with each of the options are considered fully in paragraphs 6
to 11. The key risk in both options is associated with UAL moving further outside of the
tolerance band. We propose to mitigate this by either agreeing a temporary extended
tolerance band, or to provide migration funding.
Sector impact assessment
22.
Not applicable at this stage.
Public presentation
23.
These proposals have been discussed and approved for Board clearance at the
Funding Round Project Board and CEG. If the Board is happy with the proposals, we
propose not to make changes to the institution’s grant letter in March but to model the
changes and illustrate the final position in the July grant letter. We would intend to inform
the institutions of the outcome in January to enable the institutions to plan appropriately.
The Board should also note that the proposals in this paper have been discussed
informally with BIS and they have no particular concerns provided that we can show that
we are continuing to deliver the provision.
6