Department of Higher Education and Training Feedback on further - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Department of Higher Education and Training Feedback on further developments towards a Support and Funding Model for Poor and “Missing Middle” students.

Presidential Commission 23rd / 24th March 2017

Agenda

Introduction Student funding policy decisions ISFAP Pilot implementation ISFAP PPP Feasibility Study Funding and Design to enable the implementation of ISFAP Key questions raised by the Commission

Agenda

Introduction Student funding policy decisions ISFAP Pilot implementation ISFAP PPP Feasibility Study Funding and Design to enable the implementation of ISFAP Key questions raised by the Commission

Introduction

• The Ministerial Task Team (MTT) completed its report on a financial

aid and support model for poor and missing middle students

• On the 2nd November the MTT presented its Report to the Cabinet

and gained government support for the following:

 Cabinet noted the ISFAP blueprint  Cabinet approved that the MTT Report be published in the Government Gazette for public comment  Cabinet approved that the ISFAP pilot would go ahead to test certain aspects of the proposal at selected universities and one TVET College  Cabinet approved that parallel to the Pilot a full feasibility of the ISFAP PPP in line with National Treasury regulations should go ahead

• The Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) and the

MTT Chair presented the ISFAP blue print to the Presidential Inquiry into Higher Education and Training on the 21st November 2016.

Governance and Operating Structure

Minister specifies governance structure and rules and criteria PPP Agreement Governance

Student Support

All funded students

Accommodation Student Payments University fees Books Meals Stipend Other Support Academic support:

Tutorial support Academic development Extended Programmes

Managed social support Life skills training Mentoring

First Year Experience

Medical support

Psycho-social Support

University

Oversight & admin

Verification of students & information Admin systems & processes Continuous monitoring, preventative action, remedial steps, student support

ISFAP Sources of Funding

Loans, EFCs, grants/subsidies, bursaries, risk capital

Introduction

• Since receiving Cabinet approval, various components and work

streams have been established and are progressing well:

 ISFAP steering committee  Pilot implementation to test certain aspects of the model  PPP feasibility study  Detailed design and build of manco/fundco  Funding work stream that includes:

• Overall direction and funding lines (commercial etc..)
• Social impact bonds to fund student wrap around support
• BBBEE skills development
• SETA’s
• Business/portfolio modelling and interface with National

Treasury

 Legal

Introduction

• A Project steering committee (steerco) has been established; includes the

DHET, National Treasury, ISFAP Pilot team and MTT members. Chaired by Sizwe Nxasana

• Steerco oversees the implementation of the Pilot and the feasibility study

and manages all processes towards the final model that will be taken through to Cabinet for approval (aim for September 2017)

• A full schedule of meetings has been diarized until July:

 12 weekly TEUF board meetings (including ISFAP pilot)  6 weekly overall project steerco  3 weekly project management  weekly pilot management

• The high level project plan taking ISFAP through to cabinet sign-off has

been developed.

• ISFAP operational and funding budgets prepared and documented

Agenda

Introduction Student funding policy decisions ISFAP Pilot implementation ISFAP PPP Feasibility Study Funding and Design to enable the implementation of ISFAP Key questions raised by the Commission

Student Funding Policy Decisions

• The following Policy Decisions have been devised and implemented in the

ISFAP pilot:  Maximum Loan  Expected Family Contribution by Household Means  Loan / Grant ratio by Household means  Total Cost of Study

• Maximum Loan has been calculated on the duration of the course relating

to average expected salaries, this has capped the loans, and restricted where they can be offered

• Expected family contribution has been set at R0 for households whose

income is less than R300k, 10% of total cost of study for household income R300k – R450k, and 18% of total cost of study for household income R450k- R600k

Loan and grant decision matrix – 4 year qualification

Optional loans according to higher loan repayment (due to drop out) plus household means Household Means

EFC Grant EFC Grant Grant Loan EFC EFC Grant Grant Loan EFC Loan EFC Grant Loan EFC Loan EFC Loan Max Missing Middle Household Income Band

Poor Household Income Band (below tax threshold)

1st

Year

2nd

Year

3rd

Year

4th

Year Expected Family Contribution (EFC) increases by household means Funding will be made available for n+1 years – in all categories additional year includes a loan (to incentivise success)

Loan Grant Loan Grant Lon Grant Grant Loan

Student Funding Policy Decisions

• For business modelling purposes the Total Cost of Study has been

calculated referencing the information contained in the March GTAC performance review of NSFAS, giving an average Total Cost of Study of R92k

• Within the pilot the total cost of study has been supplied by the institutions

directly (higher than average due to courses and institutions in pilot) and for a 4 year course (accounting) is R135k made up of the following:  tuition fees R53,000  accommodation R40,000  meals R20,000  books R6000  living allowance R7500  calculator / laptop R8500 (only in 1st year)

Loan and grant decision matrix for 4 year qualification program

Loans according to higher loan repayment (due to drop out) plus household means

year 1 year2 year 3 year 4 Amount % Amount % Amount % Amount % R450k - R600k Loan 40,000 30% Loan 49,200 39% Loan 102,200 81% Loan 102,200 81% Grant 70,700 52% Grant 53,000 42% Grant

• 0%

Grant

• 0%

EFC 24,300 18% EFC 24,300 19% EFC 24,300 19% EFC 24,300 19% R300k - R450k Loan

• 0%

Loan 40,000 32% Loan 113,000 89% Loan 113,000 89% Grant 121,500 90% Grant 73,000 58% Grant

• 0%

Grant

• 0%

EFC 13,500 10% EFC 13,500 11% EFC 13,500 11% EFC 13,500 11% R150k - R300k Loan

• 0%

Loan

• 0%

Loan 73,500 58% Loan 126,500 100% Grant 135,000 100% Grant 126,500 100% Grant 53,000 42% Grant

• 0%

EFC

• 0%

EFC

• 0%

EFC

• 0%

EFC

• 0%

R75k - R150k Loan

• 0%

Loan

• 0%

Loan

• 0%

Loan 73,500 58% Grant 135,000 100% Grant 126,500 100% Grant 126,500 100% Grant 53,000 42% EFC

• 0%

EFC

• 0%

EFC

• 0%

EFC

• 0%

R0k - R75k Loan

• 0%

Loan

• 0%

Loan

• 0%

Loan

• 0%

Grant 135,000 100% Grant 126,500 100% Grant 126,500 100% Grant 126,500 100% EFC

• 0%

EFC

• 0%

EFC

• 0%

EFC

• 0%

Agenda

Introduction Student funding policy decisions ISFAP Pilot implementation ISFAP PPP Feasibility Study Funding and Design to enable the implementation of ISFAP Key questions raised by the Commission

Proposed ISFAP pilot: suggested structure

DFIs, Foundations, etc

Public sector appointees

(New company)

Financial institutions

Governance structure Thuthuka Education Upliftment

Banks Financial institutions

Donations & “soft” loans

Companies

Limited group of students

Implementation: Proposed ISFAP Pilot 2017

Goals of the ISFAP Pilot (test areas of ISFAP):

• Selection process (specific areas of this only)

 Household means test  Universities list for selected courses  Academic / behavioural strength of student  Focus on professions in high demand, some general formative degrees, and artisans; and  Use of the NBT test (selection into professional programmes)

• Contracting and disbursements
• Structure University partnerships
• Private sector grant capital raising
• Design of appropriate student support
• Determination of Social Impact Bond (SIB)
• Application of funder constraints
• Administrative requirements

ISFAP Pilot agreed distribution of students

University

• f

Venda

40 20

Walter Sisulu University

20 20

University of the Witwatersrand

100 80 120 90

University of Cape Town

20 10 20 10

University

• f

Pretoria

100 20 100 100

Tshwane University

• f

Technology

50

University

• f

KwaZulu - Natal

50 20 10

Total

290 20 110 240 140 70 40 90

Prosthetists/ Physiotherapists Humanities (selected majors) General Formative Degrees Chartered Accountants Universities Medical doctors Pharmacists Actuaries Engineers

ISFAP Pilot R138m raised

DONOR AMOUNT A T C SA WIRELESS INFRASTRUCTURE (PTY) LTD 200,000.00 MERCANTILE BANK 200,000.00 ABSA FOUNDATION TRUST 10,000,000.00 HOLLARD 2,000,000.00 CAPITEC BANK LTD 300,000.00 FNB FOUNDATION 40,000,000.00 INVESTEC 4,000,000.00 LIBERTY 1,000,000.00 JSE COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER 17,000,000.00 SASOL SOCIAL INVESTMENT 3,000,000.00 MMI HOLDINGS STANDARD BANK OF S A 25,000,000.00 ANGLO AMERICAN OPPENHEIMER FAMILY TRUST IDC 2,000,000.00 CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK 1,000,000.00 LONMIN ANGLOGOLDASHANTI 306,250.00 NEDBANK 3,000,000.00 ALLAN GRAY PTY LIMITED 20,000,000.00 DISCOVERY MONDI GROUP 1,000,000.00 SAPPI SOUTHERN AFRICA LIMITED 1,000,000.00 SAFIKA HOLDINGS 250,000.00 VOLKSWAGEN OF SA PTY LTD 1,000,000.00 ASISA 2,200,000.00 SAVILLE FOUNDATION 80,000.00 WOOLWORTHS (PTY) LTD 250,000.00 CORONATION FUND MANAGERS 500,000.00 SANLAM FOUNDATION 3,000,000.00

138,286,250.00

Roles and Responsibilities in the Pilot

Universities and TVET Colleges:

• work with the ISFAP pilot team to select students to be included in the

pilot;

• supply the “wrap-around” support following guidelines set out by the

DHET and the ISFAP pilot team;

• supply programme managers (50% funded by ISFAP); and
• to utilise specific custom programme management technology to

enable monitoring and feedback. Students

• participate in the first year experience and mentoring programmes;
• attend lectures and tutorials;
• supply regular feedback for monitoring; and
• engage with the support system.

Wrap around support

Funding secured within pilot

• Project managers at universities and TVETs
• Software reporting and tracking

Support Activities: – Tutorial support – Life support – Admin support – Life skills training – Mentorship

Wrap around support

Wrap around support

Roles and Responsibilities in the Pilot …

The ISFAP Pilot Team (including DHET representatives)

• the selection of means tested students to be funded;
• the disbursement of funds through appropriate channels for

studies, accommodation, books, food and stipends;

• the structure and management of partnerships between ISFAP and

universities/TVET college;

• the design and implementation of appropriate student support;
• the determination and monitoring of key performance indicator

metrics; and

• the integrated information technology platform* for maintaining

and tracking student data across multiple fields, which reflect the areas of “wrap-around” support.

ISFAP Pilot Implementation

ISFAP Pilot

• The TEUF board has been reconstituted under the new MOI to

govern the ISFAP pilot and the first reconstituted TEUF Board meeting was held in March with newly appointed directors.

• R138m has been raised from the private sector. All funder

constraints documented and funder engagement model initiated (communication, advisory board etc..)

• Letters of thanks gone to all donors inviting them to nominate a

person to be part of the donor steering committee. The idea is to have regular feedback with donors and input.

• The pilot is running live at 7 universities.

ISFAP Pilot Implementation

ISFAP Pilot …

• 1706 student applications have been gathered, typed into

electronic form, and are now being processed by the banks to determine household means (administered by Deloitte).

• The student grant/loan/EFC decision policy has been finalized,

together with the allocations to tuition fees, accommodation, books, food, and stipends.

• Decisions regarding student applications will be completed mid-

March and notifications sent to students before the end of March

• Application to the National Credit Regulator has been

processed, in order for the pilot to be able to offer loans

ISFAP Pilot Implementation

ISFAP Pilot …

• The student administration management tool has been scoped

and developed under the leadership and funding of the Michael Susan Dell Foundation.

• Program managers have been recruited at each pilot site and

training has happened during March.

• TVT college has been removed from 1st phase, to be brought in

later phase (TVT college discussion later in presentation)

• Reviewed the conditions required to offer loans within the pilot

and instructions given (including application to National Credit Regulator and FSB)

• Engaged with SARS to complete the requirements to offer loans

in the pilot

Agenda

Introduction Student funding policy decisions ISFAP Pilot implementation ISFAP PPP Feasibility Study Funding and Design to enable the implementation of ISFAP Key questions raised by the Commission

ISFAP PPP Feasibility Study

PPP feasibility outputs

• Process prescribed by National treasury:

 Needs Analysis  Options Analysis  Project Due Diligence  Value Assessment  Economic valuation  Procurement plan

• Thorough understanding of the full lifecyle costs
• Full evaluation of different options and all risks
• Determination of value, affordability and risk transferred to

private sector

ISFAP PPP Feasibility Study

PPP feasibility progress

• Parallel to the Pilot a full feasibility study for the new scheme is

being undertaken in line with National Treasury processes.

• Transaction Advisor have been selected and retained in line

with the National Treasury Process

• The ISFAP team have studied the PPP Feasibility process,

including training/guiding workshops from National Treasury

• The PPP Feasibility process has been started, and the team is

working on the first two sections of the report.

• The objective is to complete this by June 2017

ISFAP PPP Feasibility Study

• The PPP feasibility study is one of the key inputs that will lead to

the final model to be presented to cabinet:

 PPP Feasibility output  ISFAP Pilot findings  Public comment and consultation process  Presidential Task team report and recommendations

Agenda

Introduction Student funding policy decisions ISFAP Pilot implementation ISFAP PPP Feasibility Study Funding and Design to enable the implementation of ISFAP Key questions raised by the Commission

Funding and Design to enable the implementation of ISFAP

Detailed design and build of Manco / Fundco

• Full team recruited and formed
• Envisaged processes mapped out for application process, and

business requirements developed

• Student lifecycle research completed
• Research underway with stake-holders for the Funding

requirements

• Initial discussions with prospective vendors initiated
• Overall on-plan, next step is to document NSFAS processes,

issues and risks

Funding and Design to enable the implementation of ISFAP

Funding

• Planning underway to extend the pilot into 2018 identifying types of

funding that can be brought in before full project implemented

• Social Impact Bond team formed including actuarial team seconded

to ISFAP from Discovery

• Social Impact bond initial development paper produced
• Full business modelling developed to incorporate revised decision

matrices

• BBBEE meetings held with the DTI and small task team in place
• SETA meeting held and presentation done to all the CEOs of SETAs
• Donor funding stake-holder engagement set-up through Standard

Bank

• Various funding conversations underway with many entities

Funding and Design to enable the implementation of ISFAP

Legal

• Negotiated the permission required from DHET, and drafted the

agreement between TEUF and The Maya Group to engage the Transaction Advisors.

• DHET have asked ISFAP legal workstream to lead and draft the

review of the NSFAS Act which is underway

• Currently finalising student and university contracts for the pilot

Agenda

Key questions raised by the commission What has been the general response by the Public and the Students to the ISFAP model? Have there been any drawbacks related to the implementation of the ISFAP pilot? Have any amendments been made to the ISFAP model? Have there been proposals to amend the ISFAP model? If there have been proposals, whether these proposals will be accommodated in the ISFAP model?

Agenda

Introduction What has been the general response by the Public and the Students to the ISFAP model? Have there been any drawbacks related to the implementation of the ISFAP pilot? Have any amendments been made to the ISFAP model? Have there been proposals to amend the ISFAP model? If there have been proposals, whether these proposals will be accommodated in the ISFAP model?

What has been the general response by the Public and the Students to the ISFAP model?

Institutions

• All Universities requested to be part of the pilot
• Universities that were not selected campaigning to be included
• Written feedback from following institutions in support of the

model:

• Stellenbosch
• University of Cape Town
• Wits

What has been the general response by the Public and the Students to the ISFAP model?

Private sector

• Presentations to BASA, BLSA, ASISA all received unanimous

support

• Private institutions donated over R138m to ensure the pilot is

implemented at short notice

• Private institutions donated over R20m in operating costs to

ensure the pilot is implemented at short notice NSFAS

• NSFAS supplied a comprehensive response and the detailed

information provided will be a valuable resource for the feasibility study and towards finalising the ISFAP model.

What has been the general response by the Public and the Students to the ISFAP model?

Students

• 1706 applications to ISFAP pilot (from selected courses at

selected Universities) which is oversubscribed with limited communication to students

• In general all engagements have been overshadowed by the

issues at NSFAS with current 2017 application and distribution process

• Student engagements with SRC’s have been held but due to the

focus on NSFAS issues ISFAP was not presented

• The distinction between NSFAS and ISFAP hasn’t been made

clear and many people are confused

What has been the general response by the Public and the Students to the ISFAP model?

Students ….

• Disjointed engagement with TVET colleges regarding confusing

communication

• Strong negativity from three main student groups:

 Young Communist League  SASCO  Students and individuals at Wits supporting an alternative model

• Negativity stemming from

 Philosophy of including the private sector in a solution at all  Trust towards private sector  Whole concept of loans  The proposed solution does not give free education to all

What has been the general response by the Public and the Students to the ISFAP model?

Students …

• Students’ overwhelming call for free education (some call for all
• r, some call for the poor) and express unhappiness with NSFAS
• The ISFAP model improves on NSFAS - proposing free education

for the poor and grant/loan support for other financially needy students

• ISFAP could thus be used as progressing on NSFAS to provide

funding and support for all students in a universal model

What has been the general response by the Public and the Students to the ISFAP model?

Students …

• Students are not a homogeneous group

 Most engagements with students are with political student movements  Most students in TVETs and Universities are likely not to be politically aligned  Thus engagements with students organisations is usually with the minority who have political affiliations  General students aren’t organized as well and thus are harder to engage – also because of them wanting avoid violence and being victimized  Thus consultations with student political groups may result in more extreme positions being expressed

What has been the general response by the Public and the Students to the ISFAP model?

Students …

• There is consensus on the participation of the private sector

 The concerns are around clarity as to what their participation will be, how it will be monitored and what the private sector gets out

• f their participation

 It is seen as an imperative that this involvement does not result in furthering profits but that it is for the societal good  Government should not be seen to be the only one taking the risk in the partnership

What has been the general response by the Public and the Students to the ISFAP model?

Media

• The end of 2016 saw no proactive media plan having been

actioned, meaning:

• Most ISFAP communication was reactionary & driven mainly

by media queries

• An inability to drive the message and position the PPP as

positively as could be done via proactive media engagement

What has been the general response by the Public and the Students to the ISFAP model?

Media

• There was a communication tactic change in 2017, with active

media engagements being driven by ISFAP & this resulted in:

• An increase in both actual coverage numbers, plus an

improvement in the sentiment

• An ability to flesh out issues and have an indication of which

media platforms and engagements derived what results

• Traditional media (print, broadcast & online) proved to be

where ISFAP generates the most positive coverage, as the communication message on these platforms is driven by ISFAP, versus by external commentators

What has been the general response by the Public and the Students to the ISFAP model?

Media

• The proactive stance taken on communication in 2017 has

begun to see results:

• January: Mainstream Media Coverage

− 54 media articles on ISFAP − 28% of these had a negative sentiment (driven mainly by print) & 15% were positive (mainly online) − Media platform split: print (33%) online (46%) broadcast (20%)

• February: Mainstream Media Coverage

− 57 media articles on ISFAP − 26% of these were positive (driven mainly by print & online) & in a great contrast to January, there were no negative articles − Media platform split: print (47%) online (46%) broadcast (7%)

What has been the general response by the Public and the Students to the ISFAP model?

Media

• The key/popular issues that emerged from the media coverage

were the following:

− ISFAP being viewed as NSFAS 2.0 (this was one of the trending topics on social media in February) − ISFAP as a debt trap for students & representing the corporatisation of higher education − SARS will become the equivalent of a loan shark for the private sector − ISFAP is the possible solution to ending the conflict at campuses − The model will help expand access to higher education − Business is coming to the party

What has been the general response by the Public and the Students to the ISFAP model?

Public commentary process

• Only 17 responses received in original commentary process

that closed at the end of January. Public process has been re-

• pened until the end of April and comments are being collated.
• Of the 17 responses the following were not included in the

review:

 4 submissions were unsolicited invitations from service providers  1 submission was a request for examination results from a TVET student  1 submission was a request for funding from a university students

What has been the general response by the Public and the Students to the ISFAP model?

Responses received:

No Name/Organisation 1 ETDP SETA 2 NSFAS 3 NRF 4 dylanp.barry@gmail.com 5 ksithole117@gmail.com 6 ksithole117@gmail.com 7 Prof Daya Reddy, Acting Deputy Vice-Chancellor, UCT 8 Stellenbosch University 9 Business Unity South Africa 10 Western Cape Education Department 11 Durban University of Technology, baphiwed@dut.ac.za

What has been the general response by the Public and the Students to the ISFAP model?

Public commentary process

• Stellenbosch University strongly supported the report and

recommendations, and no specific critical statements or suggestions were made.

• Western Cape Education Department strongly supported the

report and recommendations, and no specific critical statements or suggestions were made.

• NSFAS supplied a comprehensive response and the detailed

information provided will be a valuable resource for the feasibility study and towards finalising the ISFAP model.

What has been the general response by the Public and the Students to the ISFAP model?

Public commentary process ….

• Individual submissions from Kaya Sithole and Dylan Barry were

both very negative toward the whole ISFAP model in concept

• NRF, UCT, ETDP SETA, BUSA and DUT all gave generally

supporting comments, together with some critical statements

• It must be noted that in the development of the new model

and through the PPP feasibility process the tenets of the Promotion of Administration of Justice Act (PAJA) will be adhered to. All affected and interested parties must be consulted before the finalisation of the model for the scheme and the PPP

Agenda

Introduction What has been the general response by the Public and the Students to the ISFAP model? Have there been any drawbacks related to the implementation of the ISFAP pilot? Have any amendments been made to the ISFAP model? Have there been proposals to amend the ISFAP model? If there have been proposals, whether these proposals will be accommodated in the ISFAP model?

Have there been any drawbacks related to the implementation of the ISFAP pilot?

Environment

• NSFAS issues

 Confused communication  Engagements focused on NSFAS issues

• Student unrest

 Issues at TVET colleges mainly

• Impact has been to delay the processing and communication:

 Applications being processed in March  Decision only being communicated to students in April (already enrolled in education system)

Have there been any drawbacks related to the implementation of the ISFAP pilot?

Legal

• Requirement to apply to FSB and NCR for licence to grant loans
• Application process will extend into the start of the pilot
• Impact: Loans will only be offered later in the year as top up to

initial grant (to households earning 450k-600k)

Have there been any drawbacks related to the implementation of the ISFAP pilot?

TVET colleges

• Failed engagement model with Orbit college, after 6 months

couldn’t obtain information needed relating to: – Total cost of study – Throughput rates – Courses

• Concept of ISFAP is to:

– Fund more students (missing middle) – Successfully fund (total cost of study) and offer support to increase graduation rates

Have there been any drawbacks related to the implementation of the ISFAP pilot?

TVET colleges

• Key reasoning applied to University students and application of

ISFAP: – University courses are desired / supported by the private sector – ISFAP approach is to fund and support these students, creating more graduates by reaching out to the private sector as they desire/support this product

• Private businesses do not desire/ support the NCV’s or Report 191’s

programmes at this stage. TVET branch strategy is to introduce mote Occupational Programs into TVET Colleges.

• Impact: TVET college pilot delayed. Way forward is to phase the

funding and support components of ISFAP into TVET colleges in line with the TVET branch development strategy

Agenda

Introduction What has been the general response by the Public and the Students to the ISFAP model? Have there been any drawbacks related to the implementation of the ISFAP pilot? Have any amendments been made to the ISFAP model? Have there been proposals to amend the ISFAP model? If there have been proposals, whether these proposals will be accommodated in the ISFAP model?

Have any amendments been made to the ISFAP model?

• The following key areas of the ISFAP model have been refined

and amended over the last three months:

• Expected Family Contribution and Decision Matrix - detailed

matrix developed

• Development of process to obtain household means
• Development of funder requirements (constraints to be

applied and reporting)

• Set-up of Donor Committee
• The scope of funding is being amended and developed (B-

BBEE and SETA’s)

Have any amendments been made to the ISFAP model?

• Development underway according to input received:
• Phasing / Incorporation of TVET colleges in ISFAP
• Social Impact Bond
• Social repayment of ISFAP support (active citizenry)
• Funding support and requirements from B-BBEE and SETA

sources

Agenda

Introduction What has been the general response by the Public and the Students to the ISFAP model? Have there been any drawbacks related to the implementation of the ISFAP pilot? Have any amendments been made to the ISFAP model? Have there been proposals to amend the ISFAP model? If there have been proposals, whether these proposals will be accommodated in the ISFAP model?

Have there been proposals to amend the ISFAP model?

• Proposals from external finance companies:
• Separate the Loan and Grant contracting institutions within

the model to increase focus and repayment ability

• Proposals from the Social Impact and Funding modelling team
• Detailed structuring of the Social Impact Bond
• Repayments to funding could be structured as a tax rather

than individual loan repayment

• Social repayment of grants – active citizenry mentorship to

future students

Have there been proposals to amend the ISFAP model?

• Proposals from the public commentary process include (but not

limited to):

− Control/minimisation of all/any profits generated by the private sector − Suggestions regarding the operational role/components still to be performed by NSFAS − Broaden the scope past occupations of high demand − Incorporate post graduate studies in the program − Ensure solution is scaled to the White paper requirements − Align the decision making process and timing of such to the institution decision and registration process − Sub-commission to investigate student non financial support requirements − Clarification and extension of some unclear areas of the report

Agenda

Introduction What has been the general response by the Public and the Students to the ISFAP model? Have there been any drawbacks related to the implementation of the ISFAP pilot? Have any amendments been made to the ISFAP model? Have there been proposals to amend the ISFAP model? If there have been proposals, whether these proposals will be accommodated in the ISFAP model?

If there have been proposals, whether these proposals will be accommodated in the ISFAP model?

• The ISFAP model is continually being developed:

− Through the development of the Public Private Partnership Feasibility process − Through the experience gained from the pilot − Though stake-holder engagement − Through documenting the experience and issues at NSFAS

• All proposals will be evaluated by the project steering

committee and incorporated when agreed

• The development of the final model will occur through a

process of progressive elaboration – taking into consideration the outcomes of the feasibility study, what is learnt from the Pilot, the public comments and consultation process.

If there have been proposals, whether these proposals will be accommodated in the ISFAP model?

• Key proposals that are likely to be incorporated:

− Separate the Loan and Grant contracting institutions within the model to increase focus and repayment ability − Control of all/any profits generated to be mandated and managed within the PPP agreement − Final solution will not only focus on occupations in high demand but also cover general formative degrees, funder constraints may focus their funding on certain degrees − Timing of decision and distribution process must be aligned with Institutions timing of decisions and registration − Details around the NSFAS operating model will be explored in forthcoming workshops

If there have been proposals, whether these proposals will be accommodated in the ISFAP model?

• Commitment to develop a model that works for all stake-

holders incorporating all points where possible, being cognisant

• f significant negativity from student representatives towards

loans and the incorporation of the private sector, whilst still pursuing alternative funding sources as defined by the mandate, within the fiscus constraints as described by National Treasury

• Key workshops coming up:
• Workshop with DHET/NSFAS to determine operational requirements from

NSFAS and what will be procured from ISFAP through the PPP agreement

• Workshop with TVET branch to document he TVET branch strategy and

produce phased plan of ISFAP to run alongside this

If there have been proposals, whether these proposals will be accommodated in the ISFAP model?

• Key broad principles of ISFAP remain unchanged but constantly

challenged:

• Public / Private Partnership
• Additional funding sourced from all sectors, and particularly

the private sector

• Loan and grant model determined by household income
• Progressive support offered to the poor
• Total cost of study and student wrap around to increase

graduation and throughput

• Key input into the development of a funding solution is the
• utcome of the Presidential Fee’s Commission

Thank You

69