Thank you to everyone who provided me with feedback on Hardship Loans, either before or after Christmas. Please find below the comments which I have sent to the DfEE, on behalf of AMOSSHE, to inform their review. (It is quite long so apologies if it's of no interest to you and please delete now!) Pam Dear Ms Brooks Thank you for your letter of 22 December inviting AMOSSHE’s comments on hardship loans. As you will know, we have had severe reservations about the scheme since it was first announced. I should make it clear, however, that this is not because we think additional financial support for students is not needed but rather that we believe this particular scheme to be flawed. Very many students find that their essential expenditure outstrips the funding available to them via the Mandatory Award or the new Student Support systems. Since the introduction of Access Funds, institutions have been asked to make value judgements about these students, who are failed by the official system, and to determine whether they are worthy of extra resources. This year’s increase in Access Funds and the introduction of Hardship Loans have exacerbated the situation since increasingly large sums are now discretionary and within the gift of institutions. We would argue that the most important priority should be to increase the support available to students, through loans and residual grants, to a level which more accurately reflects their living costs. Nevertheless, we recognise that such a large change is not likely to happen immediately and have a number of comments to make about the current Hardship Loan arrangements. As you know, the Education (Student Support) Regulations 1998 require that a student be able to show that ‘due to exceptional financial hardship a borrower may not be able to continue to attend his course for the remaining part of the academic year’. Our experience shows that, if a student is so desperate as to be considering abandoning a course for financial reasons, it is unlikely that the sum of £250 will be able to retrieve the situation. A Hardship Loan, on its own, therefore, can rarely help the very students it is supposed to be meant for. Indeed, many of these students will already have high levels of debt and be unwilling to increase them. The consequence is that most such students also apply for Access Funds and usually this is more appropriate. Their applications to Access Funds are delayed, however, since they first have to apply for a Hardship Loan which they can not do until they have received the first instalment of their normal loan. This in itself can cause extra hardship which is exacerbated should there be any problems with their loan applications. Conversely, there are a number of students in less dire straits for whom £250 could make a difference. Technically speaking, however, such students would not be eligible for a Hardship Loan since they are not at the point of actually leaving higher education. In any case, such students are often deterred from applying by the fact that they have to supply sufficient evidence to enable a means test to be carried out. Many institutions have chosen to amalgamate the application procedures for Access Funds and Hardship Loans in order to be able to cope with the additional administrative burden. Whilst this is useful in the case of students also needing help from Access Funds, the detail of such applications, necessary when considering grants of up to £3,000, can be very off-putting for someone who just wants a bit extra added to their loan. One of the difficulties with the new support arrangements is that individual students receive their funding from a multiplicity of sources. A single student may be receiving financial support from his or her Local Education Authority, family and the Student Loans Company. If s/he then has financial difficulties, further help may be available from the SLC via the institution, in the form of a Hardship Loan, and/or from the institution in the form of Access Funds. To students this appears excessively complicated and often confusing. This confusion may be further increased in those institutions which already have their own hardship funds. The doubling of Access Funds, whilst very welcome, has already created additional tasks for institutions. Such a large increase does not just mean being able to distribute more money but, in many institutions, has necessitated criteria being revisited and adjusted. This is not helped by the fact that, despite the Funding Councils collecting information about Access Funds from institutions each year, there has never been any structured feedback or opportunities to exchange good practice, other than those arranged by organisations such as our own. We will be taking this up separately with the Funding Councils. On top of this, institutions are now having to administer the Hardship Loan scheme and many are reporting that the effort expended on doing this is out of all proportion to the benefit available to students. Although some financial support is being provided this year by the payments from the Student Loans Company, this often does not cover costs. It is not clear what will happen next year when the relationship between institutions and the SLC changes with respect to income contingent loans. Current demand for Hardship Loans is low. Some reasons for this have already been mentioned (for example, the evidence required in order to apply and the confusing nature of the scheme). There has been little official publicity about the scheme which has meant either that many students do not know about it or that institutions have had to expend resources on publicising it. Another factor is undoubtedly the fact that financial hardship tends to increase as the year progresses. The Department’s expectation that 60% of allocations will be spent by the end of March is, therefore unrealistic. A number of institutions are under the impression that if this deadline is not met they will not have access to this element of their allocation after this date. If demand for Hardship Loans increases, there are likely to be significant logistical problems for institutions because of the limited funds available. It will prove very difficult, if not impossible, to implement a system able to respond to need, at the time at which it arises, and still target the most deserving cases. Students who happen to apply after an institution’s allocation is exhausted may be able to receive help from Access Funds in the form of a grant or may not be eligible to receive any further funding. (Although it is possible to use Access Funds for loans rather than grants, the money has to be repaid before graduation, meaning that this is often not a feasible option.) This will cause many dilemmas for those allocating Access Funds. There is also some confusion currently about the methodology used to distribute the funding available for Hardship Loans. I had previously been led to believe that the allocation to institutions would probably be made according to the number of eligible students and there was unlikely to be any weighting. The figures I have from institutions would suggest that this is no longer the case although I do not recall receiving any subsequent information that this had changed. In view of the many concerns which we have about the current system, we would make the following suggestions: Adding the funding available for Hardship Loans to Access Funds to create a single system would reduce the confusion among students and also reduce the burden on institutions. If Hardship Loans were to continue, however, the eligibility criteria should be changed so that students in lesser need were able to apply for them. Whilst we recognise the discretion currently granted to institutions, the requirement for students to apply for a Hardship Loan before being eligible for Access Funds should be removed to enable those in the greatest need to get help from the Access Funds without having to add to their existing debts. Clarification is sought regarding the expectation that 60% of institutions’ allocations will be spent by the end of March and whether there will be any repercussions if this is not the case. We would welcome clarification of what payments institutions will receive next year in relation to their administration of Hardship Loans and how these payments will be made. The methodology used for allocating the funds should be more transparent in future and clarification is needed as to the methodology used for 1998/99. I hope these comments and suggestions are useful and I look forward to having the opportunity to discuss them in more detail in due course. ---------------------- Pamela Bell-Ashe University of Liverpool Chair Association of Managers of Student Services in Higher Education Tel: 0151 794 2243 Fax: 0151 794 2249 e-mail: [log in to unmask] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%