Compliance with the Compulsory Student Services Fees (CSSF) Framework 2012-2015

Dr Drew Donnelly

Assistant Policy Analyst

Tertiary Education

Recap on the CSSF Framework

• In 2011, Ministerial Direction given to providers specifying decision-making, accounting and reporting requirements for Compulsory Student Services Fees (CSSF)

• This Direction applies to universities, polytechnics, wānanga and Private Training Establishments (PTEs)

• The Direction was amended in 2013 with increased reporting requirements.

• There was no amendment to the Ministerial Direction in 2014.

Decision-Making Requirements

• Providers must establish adequate arrangements for decisions to be made jointly, or in consultation with, students, or their representatives, on the following matters:

a. The amount of CSSF

b. Types of Service

c. The procurement of these services

d. The method for authorising expenditure on these services.

Accounting and Reporting Requirements

Accounting

Providers must hold CSSF fees either in a separate bank account or account for the fees separately

Reporting

Providers must provide information on CSSF in their annual reports or (in the case of PTEs) the written report they send to students. The following information must be included:

a. A description of the services to be funded

b. A statement of the fee income and expenditure for each type of student service

c. The levy charged per Equivalent Full Time Student

d. A note stating how they are complying with the accounting requirement of the direction.

 

Categories of Service

Providers may charge compulsory student services fees to support the delivery of the following categories of services:

(a) Advocacy and Legal Advice

(b) Career Information, Advice and Guidance

(c) Counselling Services

(d) Employment Information

(e) Financial Support and Advice

(f) Health Services

(g) Media

(h) Childcare Services

(i) Clubs and Societies

(j) Sports, Recreation and Cultural Activities.

Slowing Annual Increases (Universities)

AUT Lincoln Massey Auckland Canterbury Otago Waikato VUW0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Annual average % change 2010-13

% change 2013-2014

2013 Review of Reporting Compliance

• Most providers not fully complying with the reporting requirements.

• Areas needing improvement included: • Describing services provided• Reporting CSSF income and expenditure separately for each type of

service • Charging for services that fell outside the listed categories of service.

Actions taken: • Official guidance issue by the Tertiary Education Commission reminding

providers of their obligations under the Direction• The Direction was amended to require:• (a) providers to report the amount of CSSF per EFTS charged.• (b) providers to report how they are complying with the accounting

requirement• (c) PTEs to send a copy of their written CSSF report, to the Ministry of

Education.

2014 Review of Reporting Compliance

• To our knowledge, all universities, polytechnics and wānanga, that charge CSSF levies, are reporting on CSSF.

• The majority are now complying with the requirement to give a description of those services

• Most are complying with the requirement to report CSSF income and expenses separately (a compliance improvement from 10% to 57% of providers between 2012 and 2013).

Action taken:

• As compliance had improved, Direction not amended

• TEC re-issued official guidance.

Areas for Improvement

• In 2014, only 35% of universities, polytechnics and wānanga the CSSF levy per EFTS

• Only 21% stated how they were complying with the accounting requirement

• Very few PTEs are complying with the requirement to send the Ministry of Education a copy of the written report they send to students.

• Some providers still charging for services that don’t fall within one of the categories.

Example of CSSF Reporting Good Practice 2014 (Part One)

Example of Good Practice (Part Two)

Reporting Next Steps

• 2015 Review of the framework includes a review of the reporting requirements

• Your feedback essential.