Key Points

Students

• The proportion of students with a disability has increased every year from 2016/17 to 2022/23. The proportion has increased from 13% in 2016/17 to 17% in 2022/23.
• The proportion of students with an ethnic minority background has increased in every year from 2016/17 to 2022/23. The proportion has increased from 10% in 2016/17 to 14% in 2022/23.
• The majority of students are female. This size of this majority has increased from 55% in 2016/17 to 57% in 2022/23.

Staff

• The proportion of staff with a disability increased each year from 2016/17 to 2022/23. For academic staff the proportion increased from 4% to 7% and for non-academic staff the proportion increased from 6% to 10%.
• The proportion of staff with an ethnic minority background has increased each year from 2016/17 to 2022/23. For academic staff the proportion increased from 11% to 17% and for non-academic staff the proportion increased from 4% to 6%.
• The majority of academic staff are male, although the size of this majority has fallen slightly from 53% in 2016/17 to 52% in 2022/23. The majority of non-academic staff in this period were female. The size of this majority is 62% in 2022/23 which is the same as in 2016/17.

Methodology information

Data Sources

The data for this release come from the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) Student and Staff records collected by Jisc.

In 2022/23 the student data was collected with the revised data collection delivered by the Data Futures programme. Jisc conducted a comprehensive quality assessment on the dataset and this is detailed in their 2022/23 student data quality report. A summary of the Student data collection process for 2022/23 covering timescales, validation and business rules and checking processes is included on the HESA website. Information about the earlier years of student data can also be found on the HESA website.

A summary of the Staff data collection process and associated quality rules can be found on the HESA Staff data collection page.

Coverage – Students

The statistics include students who are part of HESA’s higher education standard registration population. More information on this population can be found in the student definitions on the HESA website.

All uses of ‘students’ in this bulletin refer to ‘student enrolments’. This is a count of each enrolment for a course. In rare instances where a student was enrolled in two different courses in the same year, that student would be counted twice.

Coverage – Staff

These statistics include staff who are in the HESA staff contract population, which includes those individuals who have one or more contracts (which are not atypical) that are active on 1 December in the relevant HESA reporting period. Staff on a atypical contract are those members of staff whose contracts involve working arrangements that are not permanent, involve complex employment relationships and/or involve work away from the supervision of the normal work provider.

All figures on staff are the full-person equivalents (FPE). Individuals can hold more than one contract with a provider and each contract may involve more than one activity. In analyses staff counts have been divided amongst the activities in proportion to the declared full-time equivalent for each activity. This results in counts of FPE.

More information on this population can be found in the staff definitions on the HESA website.

Rounding Strategy

The data presented in this report follow the principles of the HESA Standard Rounding Methodology. The strategy is intended to prevent the disclosure of personal information about any individual.

This means that:

• Student and staff counts are rounded to the nearest multiple of 5.
• Percentages are calculated based on the unrounded counts and exclude unknowns. Percentages are not published if they are fractions of a small group of people (fewer than 22.5).
• Totals are also subject to this rounding methodology. As a result, the sum of numbers in each row or column may not match the total shown precisely.

Quality information

Statement of compliance with the Code of Practice for Statistics

Our statistical practice is regulated by the Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR). OSR sets the standards of trustworthiness, quality and value in the Code of Practice for Statistics that all producers of official statistics should adhere to.

All of our statistics are produced and published in accordance with a number of statements and protocols to enhance trustworthiness, quality and value. These are set out in Medr’s Statement of Compliance with the Code of Practice for Statistics.

These official statistics demonstrate the standards expected around trustworthiness, quality and value in the following ways.

Trustworthiness

These statistics have been published according to Medr’s Statement of Compliance and pre-release access to official statistics policy.

Quality and Value

This section provides a summary of information on this statistical release against five dimensions of quality: Relevance, Accuracy, Timeliness and Punctuality, Accessibility and Clarity, and Comparability and Coherence. These also cover the aspects of the Value pillar in the Code of Practice for Statistics.

1. Relevance
   The data in this report gives an overview of some equalities characteristics of students and staff in the higher education sector in Wales. This can be used to identify how effective particular policies related to equalities characteristics in higher education are, or to identify whether those with particular characteristics are under-represented in higher education.
   
2. Accuracy
   The HESA student and staff data are both censuses rather than surveys, as such there is no inaccuracy due to estimation. However, the accuracy of the data can be affected by errors in the data submitted. This is mitigated with a comprehensive set of quality checks, where potential issues are queried with providers so a suitable explanation for the data can be reached, or the data is corrected if necessary.
   The other factor affecting accuracy is where personal characteristics are returned as unknown. During the data collection process high levels of unknown values are queried with HE providers to minimise this where possible. The number of students and staff returned with unknown values are included in the spreadsheet and PowerBI dashboard so the scale of these are clear to users.
   
3. Timeliness and punctuality
   The data in this release refers to student and staff data up to the 2022/23 academic year. As the HESA student and staff data collections are retrospective collections there is a lag between the academic year and when the data can be made available. This lag has been extended for this publication due to two factors:
   * Delays to the student data collection as a result of the implementation of the Data Futures programme. This resulted in data being available later than usual.
   *The establishment of Medr. Prior to this release, these statistics were published by HEFCW. Unlike HEFCW, Medr is a producer of Official Statistics and setting up the appropriate processes for this, as well as the general establishment of Medr, contributed to an increased amount of time required to produce this analysis.
   The latter of these factors will not affect future versions of this release, and the delays associated with the Data Futures programme will reduce as the new data collection process becomes established.
   
4. Accessibility and clarity
   This statistical release was pre-announced on the Welsh Government’s statistical release calendar.
   This report is accompanied by a PowerBI dashboard and a spreadsheet which can both be accessed on the Medr website.
   
5. Comparability and coherence
   As the HESA student and staff data collections are UK-wide data collections, these statistics can be compared to similar analysis of equalities data for Higher Education providers across the UK which is available on the HESA Open Data website.

Introduction

This publication provides information about staff employed at higher education institutions in Wales as collected in the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) Staff Record. Previous versions of this series were published by the Welsh Government and can be found on the Welsh Government website.

Main points

• Overall, there has been a 4% rise in the number of staff at Welsh universities from 21,815 in 2022/23 to 22,635 in 2023/24.
• Staff numbers were higher in 2023/24 than they were in 2022/23 for Cardiff University (10%), Wrexham University (9%), University of Wales Trinity Saint David (9%), Cardiff Metropolitan University (5%) and University of South Wales (4%).
• Staff numbers were lower in 2023/24 than they were in 2022/23 for Swansea University (1%), Aberystwyth University (4%) and Bangor University (8%).
• Cardiff University employed the most staff (7,760) followed by Swansea University (3,825).
• Wrexham University was the smallest university in terms of staff numbers, employing 585 staff in 2023/24.
• Staff are evenly split between academic and non-academic contracts across the sector, both accounting for 50% of all staff.
• 60% of academic contracts were full-time and 74% of non-academic contracts were full-time.
• Of those on non-academic contracts 5,130 (45%) were in professional or technical occupations, 3,745 (33%) were in administrative and secretarial occupations, 1,055 (9%) were managers, directors or senior officials and 735 (7%) were in elementary occupations. The definitions of these occupation groups come from the nine Major Groups of the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) 2020.
• 56% of staff across the sector were female. However, only 49% of academic contracts were held by female staff. Two thirds of all part-time staff were female (65%).
• 9% of academic teaching staff reported that they were able to teach through Welsh and of those, 46% were known to be teaching in Welsh.

Staff numbers are calculated using the full-person equivalent for staff at 1 December of the reporting year. Staff on atypical contracts are not included. Atypical staff are those members of staff whose contracts involve working arrangements that are not permanent, involve complex employment relationships and/or involve work away from the supervision of the normal work provider.

Data

The data is available on StatsWales and HESA Open Data.

Quality and methodology information

Figures are based on the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) Staff Record. For Welsh institutions submitting to the staff record data is required for all academic staff, and for non-academic staff if the contract is not atypical. Data also need not be returned for agency staff, self-employed staff, honorary contracts where the contract is not deemed to be a contract of employment and staff not employed by the HEI, but by a company consolidated into the HEI’s accounts.

Non-atypical staff full-person equivalent (FPE) counts are calculated on the basis of contract activities that were active on 1 December of the reporting period.  Atypical staff FPE counts are calculated on the basis of those individuals who have only atypical contracts that were active during the reporting period.

More information related to definitions used can be found at www.hesa.ac.uk/support/definitions/staff.

Statement of Compliance with the Code of Practice for Statistics

Our statistical practice is regulated by the Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR). OSR sets the standards of trustworthiness, quality and value in the Code of Practice for Statistics that all producers of official statistics should adhere to.

All of our statistics are produced and published in accordance with our Statement of Compliance with the Code of Practice for Statistics and other statistical policies.

These official statistics demonstrate the standards expected around trustworthiness, quality and public value in the following ways.

Trustworthiness

This is produced by professional statisticians complying to the Code of Practice for Statistics. Release dates are pre-announced, protocols around data confidentiality are followed.

Quality

The data is sourced from the HESA Staff Record which collects data from higher education providers across the UK. When the data is submitted it is checked against various quality rules with further quality checks undertaken by analysts producing analysis.

Value

These statistics provide information on the staff working at higher education institutions in Wales.

Contact

Email: [email protected]

Introduction

1. This publication provides guidance to the internal auditors of higher education institutions (HEIs) and further education institutions (FEIs) funded by Medr for higher education provision referred to throughout as higher education providers (HEPs) to use for their annual internal audit of the internal controls relating to the systems and processes in place to produce higher education (HE) data returns, and requests a copy of this internal audit report for each HEP.  Both HEFCW and Medr are referenced throughout this publication depending on historic or current data and processes.

2. Previously, external audits were commissioned by HEFCW so that HEPs were externally audited at least once every four years. 2021/22 was the last year of the contract HEFCW had with external auditors to do this and so in Medr we are continuing with the interim process used last year in place of external audits until the audit process is reviewed.

3. For 2025 the process will involve members of the Medr Statistics team meeting with data contacts at each HEP, to cover items such as previous audit findings, Data Futures implementation and review, and data quality. As part of this interim process, Medr will continue to rely on the annual assurance provided to HEPs and their Audit Committees by their internal auditors about the systems and processes used to produce data returns. Relying on the internal audits will maintain an adequate level of annual assurance in respect of HEPs’ data returns.

4. The internal audit will provide an opinion as to the adequacy and effectiveness of the controls in place to manage the risks relating to the accuracy of data submitted by the HEP to the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA), Medr and Welsh Government (WG), including data used in calculations for the following funding streams:

• Teaching funding (currently comprising per capita and premium funding and part-time (PT) undergraduate (UG) credit-based funding);
• Research funding comprising Quality research (QR) funding and Postgraduate research (PGR) training funding;
• Research Wales Innovation Funding (RWIF);
• Medr’s part-time undergraduate fee waiver scheme;
• Well-being and mental health funding;
• Race access and success funding;
• Targeted employability support funding;
• Wales Research Environment and Culture (WREC) funding;
• Capital funding.

and the data used to monitor the following funding streams:

• Medr’s part-time undergraduate fee waiver scheme;
• PGT Master’s bursaries allocations;
• Medr funded Degree Apprenticeship scheme allocations.

5. The internal audit should also provide assurance over the controls in place to ensure the accuracy of data used in the monitoring of performance, including key performance indicators such as the National Measures, and if applicable, data included by HEPs as part of the fee and access plan reporting requirements.

6. The Data Futures programme was implemented for the 2022/23 HESA student record. There were difficulties with the return caused by delays to the functionality of the HESA Data Platform, late software updates, late supply of data quality rules by Jisc and other issues in its implementation year.  In light of this, for the 2024 audit scope we didn’t recommend that auditors examine the implementation of the new record for 2022/23 in depth, or the systems and process relating to the 2022/23 return, but rather provide opinions on the controls in place to manage risks relating to the record going forward including plans to review and/or improve processes, documentation and data quality moving into the 2023/24 return. Difficulties were also experienced in returning the 2023/24 student record and this may mean that providers have not been able to fully implement new processes and procedures for their systems and auditors should take these difficulties into account when setting out their programmes of work for 2025. We would expect auditors to include in the scope any updates applied to systems and processes, and to risk registers, after review of both the 2022/23 and 2023/24 student data returns.

7. This document provides guidance to the internal auditors about the nature of the controls that their audit should address, to assess whether the systems and processes are adequate to provide accurate data returns and data to use in funding and monitoring and also to ensure that internal audits taking place across the sector are carried out on a consistent basis.

8. If the internal audit report’s overall conclusion, or the conclusions relating to the adequacy of the design of the methods of control and the application of those controls, provides a negative opinion (e.g. limited or no assurance, unsatisfactory or inadequate controls) and/or the report includes a significant number of recommendations, Medr should be notified as soon as the opinion has been agreed. Medr will then conduct their own assessment of the issue and/or commission their own external audit as appropriate. This external audit would consider the accuracy of data for the current period and also consider the findings of the internal auditor and aim to assess the extent of potential errors in the data returns and data used for funding and monitoring for prior periods up to the last external audit. The findings of this external audit may result in adjustments to funding and further action may be taken if HEPs are found to be not compliant with their fee and access plans, the supply-side code of practice for data collections or the financial management code.

Scope of the Audit

9. The way in which internal audit work and controls testing is carried out at each HEP will depend on the systems and controls in place and how information is shared within the HEP. However, it is expected that the internal audit work will cover the elements highlighted in this document. Where previous internal audit work has found that the systems and controls in place are satisfactory, it may be considered appropriate by the HEP’s Audit Committee for subsequent audits to only cover areas of risk. In particular, due to the increased risks associated with the implementation of the HESA Data Futures programme in 2022/23 and into 2023/24 collection, we would expect to see this area of work included in the scope, (See also paragraph 62).

10. Auditors should ascertain the processes by which data returns and monitoring information are compiled and document them to the extent necessary to enable an evaluation to be made of the adequacy of the existing controls used by the HEP to ensure that they produce accurate data returns and appropriately compile monitoring data. Examples of the controls that the audit would normally be expected to assess are set out for all the current funding streams, data returns and other areas of audit in the sections below. Many of the controls are common to the data returns for all areas of audit. However, not all of the areas of audit apply to all HEPs, and auditors should refer to the relevant paragraphs.

11. Auditors should note that there are some areas where HEPs may have to return estimates, where information is not known at the time of return or information is not available in the required form. Estimates can be made using methods suggested by HEFCW/Medr in its guidance, or if appropriate, HEPs can use their own methods. Where estimates have been made, auditors should review the methods used to calculate them, confirm that they are properly documented, reasonable, consistently applied and tested for reliability.

12. If a HEP is in the process of merging or has recently merged with one or more other HEPs, the auditor should ascertain if procedures have been put in place to integrate their data systems or otherwise ensure that returns for the whole merged HEP can be made.

13. In planning the audit, the Auditor should consider the findings and conclusions of the latest external and/or internal audit reports relating to systems and data returns for the HEP and any follow up reports and correspondence with management to assess the extent of implementation of the reports’ recommendations. It is expected that the audit reports will make reference to and comment upon the extent that recommendations made by auditors in the previous internal or external audit reports have been effectively implemented.

14. Additionally any data issues or errors notified either directly to Medr by the provider, or identified and communicated by HEFCW/Medr, should be referenced in the report together with any action taken to ensure that data systems and processes have been amended where appropriate to mitigate against any such errors in future. As explained in paragraph 6, there were difficulties with the implementation of the Data Futures programme. This led to multiple errors being flagged and tolerated in the HESA student record issue management system (IMS) in both 2022/23 and 2023/24. We are not expecting auditors to review these errors, but would recommend any review for the HESA student record for the 2023/24 return focus instead on providers’ plans to review these errors and any action they might take to improve systems and processes moving into future HESA student record returns.

15. It is recommended that internal audit staff with some experience of the HE sector and associated data returns are involved in the visits to HEPs undertaken as part of the review and that auditors are sufficiently briefed on the guidance contained within this publication prior to carrying out the audit. In addition, auditors should make themselves aware of the UK-wide issues experienced with the implementation of Data Futures in 2022/23 and the issues experienced for the 2023/24 return. Advice and clarification relating to the guidance in this publication can be obtained from Medr via [email protected], and Medr staff are available to meet with internal audit staff if required.

16. All HEFCW/Medr publications described below are available via the relevant links in this publication or can be obtained from Medr directly via [email protected].

Funding Methodology and Data Requirements

17. HEFCW circular W24/13HE HEFCW’s Funding Allocations 2024/25 describes the overall funding distribution for academic year 2024/25 including:

• PGR and QR funding (pages 6&7)
• RWIF (page 7)
• Teaching funding (pages 8 to 11)

W24/13HE also includes funding which is further described in the following publications:

• Well-being and health strategy funding (Medr/2024/07)
• Part-time undergraduate fee waiver scheme (W24/15HE)
• Race equality in higher education allocations (Medr/2024/03)
• Targeted employability support for students (W23/15HE)

18. HEFCW circular W23/27HE Higher Education Data Requirements 2023/24 informs HE providers of the 2022/23 data used to calculate funding allocations and used for monitoring purposes, as well as student eligibility criteria for:

• Per capita funding (Annex A para 18)
• Access and retention premium (Annex A para 20)
• Disability premium (Annex A para 34)
• Welsh medium premium (Annex A para 36)
• Expensive subjects premium (Annex A para 41)
• Higher cost subjects premium (Annex A para 46)
• Part-time undergraduate fee waiver scheme (W24/15HE)
• Race equality in higher education allocations (Medr/2024/03)
• Targeted employability support for students (W23/15HE)

19. Medr publication Medr/2024/01 Higher Education Data Requirements 2024/25 informs HE providers of the data used to calculate funding allocations and used for monitoring purposes using 2023/24 HESA student record data.

20. Due to the implementation of HESA Data Futures, auditors should note the caveats included for 2022/23 and 2023/24 data, given the new nature of the data return, in paragraphs 3 and 4 of Medr/2024/01, and our expectations about audit of the systems and processes for the 2023/24 HESA student data return described in paragraphs 6 and 14 of this publication.

21. Annex A of this publication contains an outline of the methodology used to calculate the formula driven elements of credit based funding for teaching, RWIF, PGR training funding and QR funding.

22. Annex B contains the criteria for inclusion of data in the allocations of per capita, premium, PGR training funding, race equality funding, well-being and health funding and targeted employability support funding.

23. Annex C contains the eligibility criteria for data used in the calculation of the National Measures.

24. Annex D contains documentation supplied to HEPs to support Fee and Access Plan sign off.

25. Annex E contains a summary of recommendations from previous internal audits.

Teaching funding

26. 2024/25 teaching funding comprises:

• Funding allocated through the credit based teaching funding method for part-time undergraduate taught provision;
• Per capita funding for full-time and part-time taught provision;
• Expensive subjects premium funding for full-time undergraduate provision;
• Higher cost subjects premium for full-time undergraduate provision;
• Access and retention premium funding for part-time undergraduate provision;
• Disability premium for all modes and levels of study;
• Welsh medium premium for part-time undergraduate provision and full-time undergraduate provision that qualifies for expensive subjects premium or higher cost subjects premium funding.

27. Funding allocated for part-time undergraduate provision through the credit based teaching funding method for 2024/25 was based on 2022/23 End of Year Monitoring of Higher Education Enrolments (EYM) credit value data extracted through the HESA Information Reporting Interface Service (IRIS) process. HEFCW circular W23/26HE details the 2022/23 EYM extraction process and mappings.

28. Adjustments to credit based teaching funding are normally calculated using EYM data extracted during the HESA IRIS process. The 2022/23 adjustment process has taken place and the data extracted is described in the 2022/23 EYM circular W23/26HE. The latest data extraction is described in the 2023/24 EYM publication Medr/2024/00 though the adjustments for 2023/24 have not yet been calculated.

29. Testing of the systems and processes used to generate figures returned on the Higher Education Students Early Statistics (HESES) survey and EYM data returned on the HESA student record and extracted via HESA IRIS should aim to answer the following questions:

• Is the latest HEFCW/Medr guidance being utilised and adhered to, in particular, have changes from the previous HESES surveys been noted and appropriately implemented?
• Are data on the records system validated (e.g. a comparison of a sample of enrolment forms with data on the system)?
• Is the method of extraction of data used to make a return to the HESES survey documented?
• Is there an adequate audit trail to confirm that the method of data extraction for the surveys is being applied as documented?
• Are details of any manual amendments to data extracted from the system for the HESES survey, or to EYM data extracted via HESA IRIS, documented, with justification and/or appropriate authorisation of the changes?
• Is a copy kept of the data taken from the system to make the return to the HESES survey?
• Is the final return to the HESES survey checked against data on the system prior to submission and is there adequate evidence of this checking process?
• Is the EYM data extraction provided through the HESA IRIS system checked against data on the HEP’s internal system and is there evidence of this checking process prior to the data verifications being signed off?
• Is the verification approved and signed off by an appropriate person?
• Are the staff resources available, taking into consideration experience and expertise, adequate to ensure that the HESES survey returns are accurately prepared and the EYM extraction from the HESA IRIS system is thoroughly checked?
• Is the documentation of the system and staff resource sufficient to ensure that accurate data returns could be prepared even in the absence of some key staff?
• Is there a risk register in place and are the risks relating to the compilation of accurate data returns, and related controls to manage these risks, adequately assessed and documented together with details of planned action to be taken, where relevant, to strengthen the existing controls?
• Where errors were identified in HESES/EYM returns or sign-offs, by HEFCW/Medr or the HEP, have processes been implemented to address these data errors and to mitigate against errors in future returns and sign-offs?
• Are HESES survey returns scrutinised before submission by suitably experienced members of staff other than those compiling the return?
• Are EYM data extracted as part of the HESA IRIS system scrutinised before verification by suitably experienced members of staff other than those that compiled the HESA return?
• Is a summary report of the data returned presented to the HEP’s senior management team (e.g. the total numbers of credits and students by mode and level with comparisons to prior years and/or other returns)?
• Is there a suitable process in place to ensure that staff who provide information (e.g. in departments) and staff compiling the return liaise as necessary to ensure that the most up to date information available relating to the survey period is included in the return?
• Is there evidence that validation and credibility checks are completed before returning or signing off data (e.g. scrutinising the credibility checks provided by HEFCW/Medr on the Excel spreadsheets; comparing EYM/HESES data against HESES returns made earlier in the academic year or in the previous academic year; use of control totals)?
• Has the Explanations worksheet in the EYM workbook been completed where year on year differences require explanations?
• Are there procedures for determining the fundability status of students and are checks made on fundability status (e.g. for students located outside Wales); and have the fundability rules contained in HESES been accounted for in the determination?
• Is the method for assigning Higher Education Classification of Subjects (HECoS) codes to modules and hence categorising credits into Academic Subject Categories (ASCs) documented and reasonable (for any data relating to 2019/20 onwards)?
• Is there an adequate audit trail to confirm that the method for categorising credits into ASCs is being applied as documented?
• Are processes used by HEPs to calculate estimates (e.g. non-completion rates) reasonable and documented, and is their reliability tested?
• Do processes ensure that evidence of enrolment and attendance available is complete and retained as part of the audit trail (e.g. enrolment forms, online enrolment records, module choice forms)?
• Are franchised out students correctly identified as such on the system, and recorded as such on the returns, and not, for example, as distance learning students (where distance learning students are those that are students of the reporting HEP, where staff employed by the reporting HEP are responsible for providing all teaching or supervision, but who are located away from the reporting HEP and are not part of a franchising arrangement with another HEP or organisation)?
• Are arrangements with franchise partners documented and are there controls in place to ensure that only the franchisor returns the provision?
• From 2024/25 HESES onwards, are degree apprentices on the Medr funded degree apprenticeship scheme recorded correctly both for enrolments and associated assumed completed credit values.
• If the HEP has recently been formed from a merger are the data systems in place sufficiently integrated to enable the HEP to make returns for the whole HEP and manage the process of validating and verifying data?

30. For 2024/25 funding, per capita and premium funding is based on data taken from the 2022/23 HESA student record (coding manuals and guidance are available on the HESA website – www.hesa.ac.uk). In looking at the above questions, in any in analysis of student data, it is not expected that auditors will look in depth at systems and processes related to 2022/23 HESA student record data, as described in paragraphs 6 and 14, but that any in depth testing carried out would be on the systems and processes for 2022/23 data used for 2024/25 funding.

31. HESES data is not used in allocation of 2024/25 teaching funding, however it is required to monitor student recruitment and to provide to the Welsh Government for student and, up to 2023/24 HESES, Initial Teacher Education (ITE) planning. Additionally, from 2024/25 onwards, HESES data is used in allocation of in-year funding for degree apprentices on the Medr funded degree apprenticeship scheme. Testing will be similar to that of the systems and processes of the EYM extractions and as described in paragraph 29.

Data Requirements

32. The fields and criteria used to extract data from the records for 2024/25 funding and monitoring of funding are detailed in the HEFCW Higher Education Data Requirements circular W23/27HE The HESA student record data used in 2024/25 funding and monitoring of funding in the main is 2022/23 data which was the first record collected since the implementation of HESA Data Futures.

33. In looking at the scope of the audit, in any in analysis of student data and the associated systems and processes, including the suggested testing below, it is expected that auditors will look at 2023/24 HESA student record data submission, using guidance included in paragraphs 6 and 14.

34. Testing of the systems and processes used to make these returns should aim to answer the following questions:

HESA student record:

• Do the controls include quality checks on individualised data prior to submission to HESA, in particular for data fields used in funding (e.g. checks that home postcodes have been correctly transcribed; HECoS codes are correctly assigned; fundability status is correct; year of student is correct; those in receipt of disabled students’ allowance (DSA) are recorded as such)?
• Where errors were identified in prior returns, by HEFCW/Medr, HESA or the HEP, through audit, in Medr/HEFCW data quality meetings or otherwise, particularly those which led to reductions in funding, have processes been implemented to address these data errors and to mitigate against errors in future returns?
• Have any issues that have been raised via the HESA Issue Management System (IMS) and any associated targets applied been collated and considered to make improvements in future data submissions?
• Where errors have been identified in prior returns, are the relevant data checked prior to final submission of data to HESA to confirm that the error has not reoccurred?
• Is there evidence that the web reports and IRIS output, produced by the HESA data returns system after committing data, are scrutinised, and that any resulting issues are addressed?
• Has a review of the implementation of HESA Data Futures been carried out and any updates to systems or processes been actioned along with any associated changes to risk registers?
• Is a copy kept of the final data submitted to HESA?
• Is the method used to calculate the proportion of a module taught through the medium of Welsh documented, reasonable and consistently applied?
• Are any manual amendments made by HEFCW/Medr to exclude Welsh medium modules checked to confirm they have been correctly excluded?
• Are any changes made to include additional information requested, or manual amendments made to the Degree Apprenticeship monitoring extracts, checked to confirm they are accurate and adjusted totals are correct?
• Are any manual amendments made by the provider to the monitoring returns output from IRIS for the part-time fee waiver and PGT Master’s bursaries documented and scrutinised before sign-off?
• Are the staff resources available, taking into consideration experience and expertise, adequate to ensure that the data returns are accurately prepared?
• Is the documentation of the system and processes and the staff resource sufficient to ensure that accurate data returns could be prepared even in the absence of some key staff?
• Is there a risk register in place and are the risks relating to the compilation of accurate data returns, and related controls to manage these risks, adequately assessed and documented together with details of planned action to be taken, where relevant, to strengthen the existing controls?
• Are returns scrutinised before submission by suitably experienced members of staff other than those compiling the return?
• Is a summary report of the data submitted to HESA presented to the HEP’s senior management team (e.g. numbers of students by mode and level and/or course and subject with comparisons to prior years and/or other returns)?
• Are the HEFCW/Medr confirmation and verification reports checked against data submitted to HESA to ensure that the HEFCW/Medr reports are accurate according to HEFCW/Medr criteria?
• Where, in addition to their directly funded provision, the FEI franchises provision in, are there controls in place to ensure that only the franchisor returns the provision to HESA?
• If the HEP has recently been formed from a merger are the data systems in place sufficiently integrated to enable the HEP to make a HESA student record return for the whole HEP?

National Measures

35. The systems and processes used to return data used in the monitoring of National Measures for 2017/18 and onwards, for HEIs, are within the scope of the audit for the following set of measures:

• Widening access;
• Participation;
• Retention;
• Part-time;
• Welsh medium;
• Student mobility;
• Continuing Professional Development;
• Total HE-BCI income per full-time equivalent (FTE) of academic staff;
• Spin off activity;
• Start – up activity (graduate);
• Research Staff;
• PGR students;
• PhDs awarded;Research income;
• EU/Overseas students;
• EU/Overseas staff;
• Transnational Education.

36. A subset of the National Measures are included in the scope of the audit for FEIs:

• Widening Access;
• Participation;
• Retention;
• Part-time;
• Welsh medium.

37. HESA UK performance indicator (PI) data, which are derived from HESA student record data, were used in the calculation of the participation and retention National Measures. HESA previously produced PIs on behalf of all the HE funding and regulatory bodies of the UK and announced that 2022 would be the last year that PIs would be published and indicators will be reviewed for migration into Official statistics or Open data. However at the present time there are no updates to the UK PIs used to monitor participation and retention. This means that 2020/21 academic year data were the last used to produce PIs in their current form. More information about the UK performance indicators can be found on the HESA website. While we are unable to update the retention measure for 2021/22 and 2022/23, we have been able to update the participation measure for both 2021/22 and 2022/23. HESA kindly provided us with the 2021/22 data calculated using the UKPI methodology as a one-off, and we have calculated 2022/23 using a methodology which follows HESA’s participation methodology as closely as possible.

38. The fields and criteria used to extract the data used in monitoring these measures are detailed in the Higher Education Data Requirements circular (HEFCW circular W23/27HE). Testing of systems and processes used to return data that are used in funding will cover most of the testing appropriate for HESA data used in monitoring National Measures. In any testing of the HESA student record, auditors should take note of the guidance in previous paragraphs relating to the 2023/24 HESA student record, particularly in paragraphs 6 and 14. In addition to the points in paragraph 34, testing should aim to answer the following questions:

HESA student record:

• Do the controls include quality checks on individualised data prior to submission to HESA, in particular for data fields used in monitoring (e.g. checks that the student’s mobility experience data is correct)?
• Is there evidence that for National Measures data extracts contained in the IRIS output produced by the HESA data returns system after committing data, is scrutinised, and that any resulting issues are addressed?

HESA Higher Education Business and Community Interaction (HEBCI) survey:

• Are HEBCI survey definitions and guidelines utilised and adhered to?
• Are validation and credibility checks carried out before returning data (e.g. comparisons with previous year’s data)?
• Are the methods and processes used to collate and extract data documented?
• Is there an adequate audit trail to confirm that data extraction methods are being applied as documented?
• Are the staff resources available, taking into consideration experience and expertise, adequate to ensure that the data returns are accurately prepared?
• Is the documentation of the systems and processes and the staff resource sufficient to ensure that data returns could be prepared even in the absence of some key staff?
• Is there a risk register in place and are the risks relating to the compilation of data returns, and related controls to manage these risks, adequately assessed and documented together with details of planned action to be taken, where relevant, to strengthen the existing controls?
• Are returns scrutinised before submission by suitably experienced members of staff other than those compiling the return?
• Is a summary report of the data returned presented to the HEP’s senior management team (e.g. the items of data used in Corporate Strategy targets with comparisons to prior years and/or other returns)?
• Is there a suitable process in place to ensure that staff who provide information (e.g. in departments) and staff compiling the return liaise as necessary to ensure that the most up to date information available relating to the survey period is included in the return?
• Are processes used to calculate estimates reasonable and documented, and is their reliability tested?
• If the HEP has recently been formed from a merger are the systems in place sufficiently integrated to enable the HEP to make a HEBCI survey return for the whole HEP?
• Do the controls include a reconciliation of the total amount of income recorded on the HE-BCI survey from collaborative research, consultancy, contract research, continuing professional development, facilities and equipment related services, intellectual property and regeneration and development returned with the audited accounts to ensure consistency?

HESA finance record:

• Are definitions and guidelines utilised and adhered to?
• Are validation and credibility checks carried out before returning data (e.g. comparisons with previous year’s data)?
• Are the methods and processes used to collate and extract data documented?
• Is there an adequate audit trail to confirm that data extraction methods are being applied as documented?
• Is a copy kept of the final data submitted?
• Are the staff resources available, taking into consideration experience and expertise, adequate to ensure that the data returns are accurately prepared?
• Is the documentation of the systems and processes and the staff resource sufficient to ensure that data returns could be prepared even in the absence of some key staff?
• Is there a risk register in place and are the risks relating to the compilation of data returns, and related controls to manage these risks, adequately assessed and documented together with details of planned action to be taken, where relevant, to strengthen the existing controls?
• Are returns scrutinised before submission by suitably experienced members of staff other than those compiling the return?
• Is a summary report of the data returned presented to the HEP’s senior management team (e.g. the items of data used in Corporate Strategy targets with comparisons to prior years and/or other returns)?
• Is there a suitable process in place to ensure that staff who provide information (e.g. in departments) and staff compiling the return liaise as necessary to ensure that the most up to date information available relating to the survey period is included in the return?
• Do controls include a reconciliation of the returned Research income values with the audited accounts to ensure consistency?

HESA Staff record

• Are quality checks carried out on individualised data for data fields used in National Measures (e.g. nationality, academic employment function)?
• Where errors were identified in prior returns, by Medr/HEFCW, HESA or the HEP, through audit or otherwise, have processes been implemented to address these data errors?
• Where errors have previously been identified in data used in National Measures, are the data checked prior to final submission of data to HESA to confirm that the error has not reoccurred?

HESA Aggregate Offshore Record

• Are quality checks carried out on headcount data used in the Transnational Education National Measure?

PGR and QR Funding

39. More information about the funding methodology for both the PGR training funding allocation and the QR funding allocation, which were revised in 2022/23, can be found in circular W22/24HE.

40. PGR training funding for 2024/25 was allocated using data about eligible, fundable student FTEs in REF 2021 units of assessment (UoAs) which qualified for QR funding taken from the 2022/23 HESA student record. Students eligible to be included in the calculation of PGR funding are those in REF 2021 units of assessment (UoAs) that were included in the QR funding model for 2022/23.

41. The fields and criteria used to extract the data from the record for 2023/24 funding are detailed in the Higher Education Data Requirements circular Medr/2024/01. In any testing of the HESA student record, auditors should take note of the guidance in previous paragraphs relating to the 2023/24 HESA student record, particularly in paragraphs 6 and 14. In addition to the points in paragraph 29, testing should aim to answer the following questions:

HESA student record:

• Are quality checks carried out on individualised data for data fields used in calculating PGR funding (e.g. fundability status is correct; UoA is correct; student FTE is correct; postcode and domicile are correct)?
• Are the Medr confirmation reports checked against data submitted to HESA to ensure the Medr reports are accurate according to Medr criteria?
• Where errors were identified in prior returns, by Medr, HESA or the HEP, through audit or otherwise, particularly those which led to reductions in PGR funding, have processes been implemented to address these data errors and to mitigate against errors in future returns?
• Where errors have previously been identified in PGR data, are the PGR data checked prior to final submission of data to HESA to confirm that the error has not reoccurred?

42. Following the implementation of the new funding methodology for QR funding allocations for 2022/23, all input data were frozen. Therefore data used to calculate 2024/25 QR funding remain the same as those used to calculate 2022/23 QR funding. Data used to calculate 2022/23 QR funding were taken from REF 2021, and from the 2018/19, 2019/20 and 2020/21 HESA finance record . The REF 2021 is not included in the scope of the audit.

43. Checks on the systems and processes used to return data relating to the student finance data from the particular years used in the QR funding allocation are included in the scope, only where they have not been included in previous audits and this is considered to be an area of risk. The questions these checks should aim to answer are outlined in the section above.

Research Wales Innovation Fund (RWIF)

44. This funding stream is calculated using data from the HE providers HESA HEBCI survey and from their HESA staff, student and finance records.

45. The details of this process can be found in HEFCW circular W23/12HE and the allocations for 2024/25 are outlined in HEFCW circular W24/13HE. Testing should aim to answer the following questions (in addition to those listed for other funding streams above):

HESA student record (Open University in Wales only):

• Do the controls include quality checks on data prior to submission, in particular for the data fields used for RWIF (e.g. that student FTE is returned correctly)?

HESA Higher Education Business and Community Interaction (HEBCI) survey:

• See the HEBCI questions in paragraph 38.
• Do the HEBCI values signed off during the RWIF verification frequently differ from those values submitted to HESA?

HESA finance record:

• See the HESA finance record questions in paragraph 38.

HESA Staff record

• Are quality checks carried out on data for data fields used in this return (e.g. that academic Staff FTE is returned correctly)?

Data returned on fee and access plans and fee and access plan monitoring returns

46. Fee and Access Plans covering two years were submitted in 2024. The approved plans covered the 2025/26 and 2026/27 academic years.

47. Fee and Access Plans were returned in line with guidance included in HEFCW circular W24/07HE Fee and Access Plan guidance. Data required for HEI submissions were limited to total numbers of students forecasted for study at each of the institutions’ location of study. Detailed guidance for this can be found in paragraphs 157 to 165 in HEFCW circular W22/19HE. In addition to this, FEIs were required to submit information on total fee income to be received and financial information. Guidance for this can be found in W22/19HE in paragraphs 155-156 and 166-173 respectively.

48. Institutions were invited to provide applications for Fee and Access Plan variations in March 2024 further to an increase in tuition fee limits made by Welsh Government in February. As part of that process, institutions were required to submit a tracked change version of their original Plan, alongside a variation request form. In submitting the variation, governing bodies of those institutions were confirming that they:
i) were compliant with CMA requirements and have taken appropriate legal advice;
ii) had consulted students on the variation;
iii) involved student representatives in the approval process;
iv) would continue to invest their agreed proportion of tuition fee income with no reduction to the proportion of investment to promote equality of opportunity; and
v) had involved partner providers where fee levels are being varied at courses delivered under franchise arrangements.

49. Fee and Access Plan monitoring is incorporated into the annual assurance return process. Institutions’ governing bodies are required to sign off the following statements in relation to Fee and Access Plans:

• No regulated course fees have exceeded the applicable fee limits, as set out in the 2023/24 Fee and Access Plans.
• The institution has assurances in relation to the management of the provision of fee information across all recognised sources of the institution’s marketing.
• The institution has taken all reasonable steps to comply with the general requirements of the 2023/24 Fee and Access Plans.
• The institution to provide documentation to support Fee and Access Plan sign off.
• The institution has taken all reasonable steps to maintain previous levels of investment, including maintaining:
  • the splits between investment to support equality of opportunity and promoting higher education,
  • investment to support the Reaching Wider partnership and student support investment.

50. The documentation produced internally that enables the governing body to sign off its annual assurance statement must be submitted alongside the annual assurance return. These documents enable us to understand the basis on which the governing body was able to sign off the Fee and Access Plan related statements of the annual assurance return. In addition to this, we also require documentation to be submitted to evidence how institutions evaluate the effectiveness of investment to deliver on Fee and Access Plan objectives. Auditors should familiarise themselves with the data required to enable the governing body to sign off this part of the statement and to inform the evaluation of the effectiveness of the Fee and Access Plan. Guidance to inform institutions is provided at Annex D.

Other HESA data

51. Other HESA data not covered in the previous paragraphs that are also under the scope of the audit include data returned on the HESA finance record, aggregate offshore record, Estates Management record, HEBCI survey and data returned on the HESA Unistats record.

52. Testing of systems and processes used to return data that are used in National Measures and RWIF funding (see relevant sections above) will cover most of the testing appropriate for HESA HEBCI survey data and HESA finance record data.

53. The Unistats dataset contains information about courses. Included in the scope of an audit of Unistats data are course related data and accommodation cost data. Testing should aim to answer the following questions:

• Have eligible courses been returned on the Unistats dataset and are the data for those courses accurate?
• Where data have been estimated, have estimates been made on a reasonable basis and documented?

54. The following funding streams were also allocated:

• Higher Education Research Capital (HERC) Funding 2024/25 (W24/14HE)
• Capital Funding 2024-25 (W24/12HE)

The audit of systems and processes used in other funding streams is sufficient to also provide assurance for the funding streams listed in this paragraph.

HESA Data Futures Programme

55. Data Futures is Jisc’s transformation programme for collecting student data, and was implemented for the 2022/23 HESA student record collection.

56. The 2022/23 and 2023/24 collections were an annual collection using the Data Futures data model. The 2024/25 collection will continue to be an annual collection.

57. Auditors should familiarise themselves with the programme and the requirements for the new record from 2022/23 and into 2023/24. We recommend that any review of the 2023/24 HESA student record should follow the guidance as described in paragraph 6, given the continuing difficulties that providers encountered in returning the record. We would expect auditors to provide opinions on the controls in place to manage risks relating to the record going forward including plans to review and/or improve processes, documentation and data quality using lessons learnt from the return of both 2022/23 and 2023/24 data, moving into the 2024/25 return, even if those processes or plans are not yet in place.

58. Testing should aim to answer the following questions:

• Did the HEP have sufficient resource, in terms of both finance and suitably skilled staff in making the 2023/24 return?
• Were senior management aware of any issues that their provider encountered for the 2023/24 return?
• Is there a plan in place to review any data quality issues, targets set resulting from IMS queries, or to put in place any lessons learnt from the 2022/23 and 2023/24 returns, to improve future returns?

Interpretation and Guidance

59. Auditors should familiarise themselves with the latest, at the time of audit, HESES, EYM, HESA guidance (including for the HEBCI survey and finance record), data requirements circular and where available, the fee and access plan process and guidance. Some of the publications may be updated after publication of this publication and auditors should pay particular attention to any changes made to the data collected that imply changes to the way in which systems and processes work and assess whether HEPs have made or intend to make appropriate adjustments.

60. Any further clarification relating to the guidance for making HESES, EYM, HESA returns or extracting EYM data from the HESA student record via the IRIS system or relating to fee and access plan guidance can be obtained from Medr via [email protected].

Open University in Wales

61. Medr has responsibility for some funding relating to teaching and RWIF at the Open University (OU) in Wales. Teaching and RWIF funding allocated to the OU in Wales is calculated using the same funding methodology as other HEIs. As in previous years the systems and processes used to compile data returns to HESA and Medr that are used in the calculation of teaching and RWIF funding are included in the scope of the internal audit. In addition, the OU in Wales is included in the National Measures and so the systems and processes used for monitoring these are included in the scope of the audit. The OU in Wales does not currently receive PGR or QR funding from Medr and as the OU are not a Medr regulated institution, do not submit a fee and access plan.

Reporting

62. The annual internal audit plan should include a review of the controls in place to manage the risks relating to the submission of accurate data returns and where appropriate, data returned in and used to monitor the FAPs.

63. This review should include an assessment of the adequacy of the controls documented in paragraphs 29 to 58 above as relevant. However, the precise scope of the internal audit work completed will be determined by each HEP’s assessment of the risks relating to their HEP’s data return and it is expected that the internal audit work will focus on the higher risk aspects of the systems and processes, for example, issues identified in previous audits, or aspects not covered in previous audits. It is expected that the scope would address any data issues or errors found by the HEP or HEFCW/Medr in terms of processes in place to correct the errors and to mitigate against any future errors. In assessing the risks, we would expect the HESA student record return for 2023/24 to be an area of risk, however, providers should take account of the guidance provided in paragraphs 6 and 14 in relation to the 2023/24 record when determining the scope of the audit work.

64. The timing of the internal audit work should be arranged so that the internal audit report can be completed and presented to the HEP’s Audit Committee before a copy of the report is sent by the HEP to Medr by 27 June 2025.

65. Where the Audit Committee’s internal audit plan includes only very limited work in relation to data systems and processes, because there is perceived to be low risk in this area, an institutional representative should contact Medr to inform us why this area is considered low risk and how annual assurance can be obtained in these circumstances. The representative should contact Medr at the point that their Audit Committee finalises their audit plan if this is the case. Similarly, if there are any changes to the cyclical nature of the plan or timing of committees that mean that an audit report will not be available by the deadline of 27 June 2025, a representative should contact Medr to discuss.

66. The internal audit report should include:

• A description of the objectives of the audit and the risks and controls included within the scope of the audit;
• Details of the audit work completed;
• Details of issues identified during the audit and the recommendations made to address these;
• Details of processes put in place to correct the errors and to mitigate against any future errors of any data issues or errors found by the HEP or HEFCW/Medr;
• A consideration of the recommendations made in previous audit reports and the extent to which these have been effectively implemented;
• Management’s responses to the report’s recommendations and the agreed timescales for their implementation;
• Details of any disagreements or recommendations which were not accepted by management;
• A clear conclusion and overall opinion as to the adequacy and effectiveness of the controls in place to manage the risks relating to the accuracy of the data returns included within the scope of the audit.

67. If the internal audit report’s overall conclusion, or the conclusions relating to the adequacy of the design of the system of control and the application of those controls, provides a negative opinion (e.g. limited or no assurance, unsatisfactory or inadequate controls) details of the significant exceptions giving rise to this opinion should be provided in the report. In these circumstances the HEP’s Audit Committee and Medr should be informed of the relevant issues as soon as possible.

68. The HEP’s Audit Committee should include reference in its annual report to the reports and assurances that it has received during the year in respect of the controls in place to manage the quality of data returns made by the HEP for funding or monitoring purposes and the controls relating to data returned in and used to monitor the fee and access plans.

69. An electronic copy of the audit report and any associated correspondence should be sent by the HEP to [email protected] no later than 27 June 2025. Note that we do not require a paper copy to be sent to us.

70. Details of the internal audit work and reports completed since the last external audit of higher education data should be retained and if required be made available to any external auditors as advised by Medr. The Medr Audit Service may also wish to review these reports and related papers during their periodic visits to the HEP.

Further information

71. Further guidance and information is available from Rachael Clifford or Hannah Falvey ([email protected]).

Medr has today welcomed its first advice from the Coleg Cymraeg Cenedlaethol on its duties relating to the Welsh language, reflecting their shared ambitions to encourage the demand for, and the participation in, tertiary education provided through the medium of Welsh.  

The advice, published by the Coleg, follows the Coleg’s designation to advise Medr, on its duty to promote tertiary education through the medium of Welsh, and has been considered in detail by our Board.  

The Coleg’s advice sets out steps that Medr and the tertiary education sector should take in supporting the Welsh Government’s ambitions for the Welsh language and the goals of Cymraeg 2050. This includes a central recommendation that Medr should develop a National Plan for the Welsh language across the tertiary education sector, which the Medr Board has agreed.

Medr’s Strategic Plan will be submitted to Welsh ministers in December 2024. The advice from the Coleg, combined with engagement across the tertiary education sector, has played a crucial role in shaping how Medr will respond to its strategic duties to the Welsh language.

Simon Pirotte OBE, Chief Executive Officer of Medr, said: “The relationship with the Coleg Cymraeg Cenedlaethol is of vital importance to Medr. We are united in our desire to see the Welsh language thriving in Wales, and committed to ensuring the tertiary education sector plays its part in realising a vision for a million speakers in Wales by 2050. The advice we have received marks the start of a significant new phase of working together, building on the positive foundations we have already established. A National Plan will be a crucial driver in enabling more learners to develop, maintain and use their Welsh language skills.”

Medr will continue to fully take account of the Coleg’s advice as it implements its Strategic Plan 2025-2030 in partnership with all stakeholders.  

Introduction

1. This publication requests higher education institutions and further education institutions with higher education provision (known collectively as higher education (HE) providers) that are funded directly by Medr for HE provision to return aggregated student data to enable Medr to:
a). Have early indications of the number of students in the academic year 2024/25;
b). Monitor recruitment of full-time (FT) undergraduate (UG) and postgraduate certificate in education (PGCE) students covered by the fee and access plans;
c). Fund and monitor degree apprenticeship provision under the Medr degree apprenticeship scheme.

Note that this request does not include the six new subscribers to the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) who have specifically designated HE course provision.

Main changes for 2024/25

2. The main changes made since the HESES 2023 survey are:
a). The survey dates are earlier than the 2023/24 survey and are more in line with previous surveys;
b). Tables 2a to 2c are no longer collected. Consequently, the table labelled Table 3 in 2023/24 is now labelled Table 2;
c). The maximum fee limits for full-time undergraduate and PGCE courses have been updated. See Annex F;
d). Annex K (previously labelled Annex J) has been updated to reflect the mapping that is being used in the extraction of data for end of year monitoring for 2023/24;
e). An additional table is being requested, Table 3, which collects information relating to degree apprenticeships. The information collected will be used to calculate funding for and monitor degree apprenticeship provision funded under the Medr scheme. The inclusion of this table was consulted upon in Medr publication, Medr/2024/02: Higher Education Students Early Statistics – consultation on changes for 2024/25 collection of Degree Apprenticeship in-year data. There was support to use the HESES survey to collect this information. Annex I gives guidance relating to the return of degree apprenticeship data. Other annexes have been updated to reflect the inclusion of this new table and relabelled where appropriate. The responses and outcomes of the consultation can be found in Annex O.

Survey data

3. HE providers that are directly funded by Medr for their HE provision are requested to return numbers of HE students on Tables 1 and 2. These are students registered on prescribed HE courses leading to recognised HE qualifications (see Annex B). HE providers that have degree apprenticeships funded under the Medr scheme (previously the HEFCW scheme) are requested to return numbers of students and credit values related to those apprenticeships on Table 3.

Contents

4. This circular provides:
a). Guidance and definitions for the various categories used to classify students;
b). Rules for counting registrations;
c). Rules for counting credit values for degree apprenticeships; 
d). Details of the criteria we will use to extract data from the HESA student record for end of year monitoring and to get information collected on previous HESES surveys;
e). Copies of the survey tables which will be distributed in Excel workbooks for providers to complete and return.

5. The contents of the annexes are as follows:

Annex		Page number
Annex A	Summary guide to the HESES 2024/25 survey	5
Annex B	Definition of a recognised HE qualification	14
Annex C	Distance learning, campuses, subsidiaries, franchises and other collaborative arrangements	15
Annex D	Definition of residential and funding status	22
Annex E	Definition of ASCs	26
Annex F	Definition of mode of study	28
Annex G	Definition of level of study	31
Annex H	Rules for counting registrations	33
Annex I	Guidance for the return of degree apprenticeship data	42
Annex J	Table and column descriptions	48
Annex K	HESA/HESES mappings and end of year monitoring data extraction criteria	51
Annex L	Workbook notes	61
Annex M	Validation checks	63
Annex N	Usage of data by Medr	64
Annex O	Outcomes of degree apprenticeship consultation	65
Annex P	Funding status reference grid	69
Annex Q	Sample copies of tables for completion by all providers directly funded by Medr for HE provision	71

Return of data

6. Providers are required to notify Medr of student registrations for the whole year, apart from on Table 3, which collects student registrations for the whole year for continuing students, student registrations between 1 August 2024 and 1 November 2024 inclusive for new entrants, plus associated credit value data for entrants on or after 1 August 2022.

7. The completed degree apprenticeship table (Table 3) should be returned by email to Andrea Thomas at [email protected] no later than 18 December 2024. Completed workbooks for the whole survey, should be returned by email to Andrea Thomas at [email protected] no later than 30 January 2025.

8. Providers that do not have degree apprenticeship provision funded under the Medr scheme are not required to return Table 3 by 18 December 2024.

9. Providers are encouraged to begin to prepare their returns well before the return date so that only final adjustments need to be made before dispatch of the completed returns.

10. It is important that the whole survey return is made on time so that early indications of numbers of students for 2024/25 are available, and to ensure that Medr has sufficient time to complete the checking process prior to sending out verifications for sign off.

11. We request that providers let us know as soon as possible, and before the return dates of 18 December 2024 for degree apprenticeships information or 30 January 2025 for the whole survey, if they envisage that they will have difficulty returning the required information or if they will have difficulty meeting the timetable given in paragraph 12. This includes ensuring that the authorised signatory, or the alternative authorised signatory, is available to sign off the verifications by the due dates. Medr reserves the right to enter its own estimates of student registrations and credit values for providers which fail to return the survey or sign off the data on time, or where data are considered to be of insufficient quality.

12. When data are returned, we carry out a validation and credibility checking process. Once any subsequent queries have been resolved, data are sent out to authorised signatories at providers for verification. The process will follow the timetable outlined below.

Table 3:

18 December 2024	Return deadline
10 January 2025	Verifications sent to providers
24 January 2025	Verifications return deadline

All HESES tables:

30 January 2025	Return deadline
13 February 2025	Verifications sent to providers
5 March 2025	Verifications return deadline

13. In the event of a deadline being missed without prior agreement, we will contact the HESES data contact and/or authorised signatory to request an explanation. If a deadline is missed by more than three working days, without prior agreement, we will email the head of the provider, reminding them that Medr reserves the right to enter its own estimates of student registrations for providers which fail to return the survey on time and indicating that Medr intends to do this if immediate action is not taken. Failure to return the data or verification report within two working days of the email will result in a letter from the Chief Executive of Medr to the head of the provider stating the figures that will be used in place of the provider’s own data.

14. Signed verifications should be returned by emailing them to Andrea Thomas at [email protected]. Prior to returning the signed verifications to Medr, providers must have undertaken sufficient checks to be satisfied that the returned data are accurate. Data anomalies queried by Medr must have been corrected or, if genuine, must have an associated explanation. Any changes that are made to the verification before signing and returning, that are not already made to the Excel format, should also be submitted in an Excel format.

15. Each subsequent deadline should be met regardless of any delay in meeting the preceding deadline.

16. Data extracted and signed off as part of the 2023/24 Information Reporting Interface Service (IRIS) process^[1] when providers make a submission to HESA, will be used in funding allocations. Providers should note that the data extractions at IRIS may need to be supplemented with additional data extractions once the methods for teaching funding for 2025/26 are finalised. If this is the case, we will contact providers about the sign off process for any additional data needed, not already signed off as part of the IRIS data extraction process. Further details are provided in the 2023/24 EYM publication and the data requirements publication for 2024/25.

17. Providers are reminded that data returned to Medr on the HESES survey, including methods used to calculate any estimates included in the returned figures, may be subject to an external audit carried out by Medr or by contractors working on Medr’s behalf. The systems and processes used to generate HESES data are in the scope of providers’ internal audits.

Future developments

18. The Statistics and Data area of the Medr website provides information about data collection. If providers have suggestions of anything additional they would like to see included, they should contact Medr at [email protected].

Further information

19. Any queries should be directed to Andrea Thomas ([email protected]).

^[1] Medr website: Data and analysis

Wales Research Environment and Culture

1. The development and sustainability of healthy research cultures and environments in universities is pivotal to supporting excellent research. Research funding bodies in the UK are supporting positive cultures through wide-ranging capacity building and enhancement activities, alongside piloting the assessment of People, Culture and Environment within the Research Excellence Framework 2029.

2. We are ambitious for our research sector in Wales. We want Wales to be renowned as a great place to undertake research and which, through collaboration, secures social, economic and cultural benefits.

3. We cannot do this without supporting the diverse workforce who contribute to research. We want to encourage research environments that support integrity, diversity, inclusivity, well-being and respect, attracting and retaining talented people from Wales, UK and across the world.

4. In 2023 HEFCW initiated the WREC Fund recognising the need to enhance research culture activities already underway in universities, supported via QR funding allocations. Medr has reviewed the WREC monitoring returns received from universities in July 2024 which indicate the fund has been valued and contributed to new or enhanced activities. We propose to continue to support the funding until 2027/28 subject to future budgets.

5. This funding will provide dedicated support for enhancing research cultures and environments. However, Medr expects that a healthy culture should be treated as an integral part of research and innovation activity and also supported strategically through core research and innovation funding.

6. The allocation of £200,000 funding to Welsh universities is to support projects, programmes and activities that actively contribute to supporting or developing positive and healthy research cultures and environments.

7. Medr expects the funding to demonstrate progress and enhancement of activity related to research culture. This funding could be used to extend existing projects, and also for new activities and infrastructure.

8. For this second year of funding, we would encourage institutions to consider how they will measure and evaluate the impacts of their research culture activities. This is to ensure that the activities are making tangible changes to research culture or generating learning about what works. We realise that these enhancement activities may still be in their infancy, therefore in this academic year we are interested in how institutions are putting in place early-stage evaluation activities.

9. In determining the use of allocations, institutions should refer to the three themes outlined in the table below. These are based on themes developed through engagement with the Welsh and UK research sectors. This is not an exhaustive list and institutions are encouraged to use the funding flexibly accounting for their strategic priorities, and broader principles relating to improving research cultures and environments.

Themes	Potential sub areas of alignment
Creating Positive Research Culture(s)	* Reward and recognition of positive behaviours * Identifying what a positive research culture looks like including well being * Valuing diverse research activity * Career development of researchers and associated professions * Developing research culture frameworks * Improving infrastructure and capacity to support better research grant capture * Tackling bullying and harassment * Collegiality and belonging * Valuing the full range of experiences, skills and contributions of all who contribute to research
Embedding Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI)	* Understanding and addressing barriers to inclusion for applicants from under-represented groups in the research talent pipeline with a view to ensuring the research environment is accessible, inclusive and equitable for all * Recognition of all staff contributions * Enhancing access to, and participation in, research from underrepresented groups
Responsible Research	* Integrity, openness and ethics * Improving research conduct and reproducibility * Research assessment and reform * Collaboration and convening institutions to share practice * Reproducilbility of metrics

10. Medr expects the WREC funding to be used to address barriers to inclusion of under-represented groups in the research talent pipeline and to develop a supportive and inclusive research environment, which values the contribution of academic staff, research enabling and support staff, and professional services staff. This includes, but is not limited to, technicians, archivists, and software engineers.

11. Medr encourages the use of the Welsh language in research to fully foster a rich and inclusive environment reflecting the cultural heritage of Wales, enriching the research community.

Sharing learning and good practices

12. Medr recognises the importance of collaboration across the sector in developing positive research cultures and the role of organisations such as the Wales Innovation Network (WIN), the Learned Society of Wales, and Universities Wales. We have provided £50,000 for FY 2024-25 to WIN to support sharing of good practices across institutions in Wales. We are also working in partnership with LSW to continue supporting diverse communities to effect change. Eligible universities are strongly encouraged to work collaboratively and build on existing activities that support positive research cultures for example: Researcher Development Programme – The Learned Society of Wales. We welcome ideas and feedback on further opportunities to support shared learning and collaboration.

Institutional Allocations

13. The method used to allocate funding for 2024/25 is based on 2022/23 HESA staff and student data:
* Number of FTEs on research-only contracts at the higher education institution
* Number of FTEs on teaching and research contracts at the higher education institution
* Number of postgraduate research students at the higher education institution

14. A minimum of £5k has been included to ensure that all universities have a usable allocation to enhance their research cultures and environments. HESA data used have been verified by universities.

Institution	FTE Research Contracts	FTE Teaching and Research Contracts	FTE PGR Students	Total	Allocation
University of South Wales	70	716	226	1012	£20,042
Aberystwyth University	118	287	257	1012	£13,120
Bangor University	224	261	610	1095	£21,683
Cardiff University	909	1312	1604	3825	£75,722
University of Wales Trinity Saint David	38	343	448	830	£16,442
Swansea University	438	549	676	1663	£32,994
Cardiff Metropolitan University	27	559	171	757	£14,996
Wrexham University	3	184	49	236	£5,000
Total	1,827	4,213	4,041	10,080	£200,000

15. This method was used by HEFCW for allocations in 2023/24 and was broadly supported by institutions in the consultation in December 2023. Medr notes that WREC funding allocation methodology does not explicitly include research-supporting staff such as some of the technical community, and professional services staff. Medr recognises the crucial contributions of these staff to research cultures and the research environment.

WREC Fund Monitoring Arrangements

16. Institutional allocations for AY 2024/25 will be made in November 2024. Medr expects assurances concerning the projects and activities that are being undertaken through this fund. Allocations should be spent in full in AY 2024/25.

17. Institutions should complete the WREC funding monitoring form at Annex A by 26 September 2025:
* Part 1 – Strategic Context: indicate the strategic context of research culture at your institution.
* Part 2 – Thematic Areas: should indicate how the activities/projects align with the thematic areas outlined in the Institutional WREC Funding section of this publication, and whether: 1. activities would have taken place without the funding, 2. activities only took place through WREC funding provision, or 3. activities could have taken place without the funding, but to a lesser extent.
* Part 3 – Evaluation: should explain how you plan to measure the effectiveness of the projects/activities.
* Part 4– Confirmation: confirm that the WREC funding has been spent in accordance with the information outlined in this publication.

18. Information submitted by institutions in their reports will form the basis of evidence to support future budget decisions and support for research culture and research environment across Wales.

Further information

19. For further information, contact Hayley Moss ([email protected]).

Impact Assessment

20. We have carried out an impact assessment to help safeguard against discrimination and promote equality. We anticipate a positive impact on race, sex, disability, age, religion and belief. We also considered the impact of this policy on the Welsh language, Welsh language provision within the HE sector in Wales, socio-economic characteristics and potential impacts towards the goals set out in the Well-Being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015.

21. We welcome the submission of monitoring reports in Welsh.

Introduction

1. This publication provides Medr guidance and monitoring templates for the allocation of £2m funding to universities to implement well-being and health strategies for 2024/25 (universities only) and for the allocation of an additional £2m in 2024/25 to well-being and health, including additional financial support for higher education students (universities and directly funded colleges).

2. This publication builds on guidance previously issued by HEFCW, in support of Medr’s aim to ensure a smooth transition for providers and learners in the first instance, as Medr takes on its new duties and responsibilities. Until the implementation of the new registration system for higher education providers, Medr has inherited HEFCW’s powers for funding and regulation of higher education.

Medr’s duties and responsibilities

3. Medr, the Commission for Tertiary Education and Research, became operational on 1 August 2024 after the dissolution of the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (HEFCW) on 31 July 2024.

4. Medr has a strategic duty to promote equality of opportunity in tertiary education and will introduce a staff and student/learner welfare related condition of registration. The Tertiary Education and Research (Wales) Bill: Exploratory Memorandum notes: “The initial and ongoing conditions regarding support for and the promotion of student and staff welfare will introduce new regulatory requirements for providers which, it was envisaged, would encompass matters such as mental health, wellbeing and safety of learners and staff at the provider. The Commission will be required to set out and publish requirements which must be met by registered providers regarding their arrangements in respect to the initial and ongoing conditions. In the context of student and staff welfare, it is envisaged that ‘arrangements’ would include policies, procedures and support services for student and staff wellbeing and safety. ‘Wellbeing’ in this context is intended to mean emotional wellbeing and mental health. ‘Safety’ is intended to mean freedom from harms including harassment, misconduct, violence (including sexual violence), and hate crime.

5. In 2024, Welsh Ministers published their statement of strategic priorities for tertiary education and research and innovation that include a priority for Medr to create a common framework for mental health and well-being support across tertiary education.

6. Medr is required to prepare a strategic plan setting out how it will address the priorities and how it will discharge the strategic duties given to it under the Tertiary Education and Research (Wales) Act 2022.

7. In September 2024, Medr published its Strategic Plan consultation. The final version of the plan must be submitted to the Welsh Ministers for approval by 15 December 2024. The Commission is under a duty to publish its approved plan and take all reasonable steps to implement it.

8. The draft Strategic Plan includes a founding commitment for Medr to develop a common framework for mental health and well-being by 1 August 2026, affirming equality of opportunity and strengthened by regulatory conditions to support staff and learner welfare.

9. When developing and revising their well-being and health strategies, suicide safer approaches and well-being policies, we expect universities to take account of the following publications, policy and funding developments and, where appropriate, include related-actions in their 2024/25 implementation plans.

University well-being and health, including mental health, policy, funding and research update and our expectations arising from them

10. In February 2024, the Welsh Government consulted in its draft mental health and well-being strategy.

11. In July 2024, Universities UK published its report Enabling Student Health and Success: Tackling supply and demand for drugs and improving harm reduction.

12. In 2024/25 Medr continues to fund:
a). the student mental health service model development project. Medr are providing in 2024/25 additional funding to support the development of a data storage solution, continued rollout of the severity index and exploration and development of information sharing protocols.
b). Myf Cymru to provide Welsh language student well-being resources and practitioners network.
c). the national Student Space programme with online student well-being materials available in Welsh.

Well-being and health, including mental health, wider equality and intersectionality considerations

13. The Welsh Parliament Health and Social Care Committee published its Connecting the dots: tackling mental health inequalities in Wales report with 27 recommendations. In February 2023 the Welsh Government published its response to the report.

14. Universities should consider the report recommendations when developing their well-being and health/mental health approaches including:
i). Trauma-informed Practice Framework that will be a key component in the Welsh Government’s drive to make Wales a trauma-informed nation.
ii).  The Welsh Government’s national framework for social prescribing.

15. In March 2023, HEFCW published circular W23/06HE: Safe and inclusive higher education: supporting equality and diversity education. The circular set out specific actions Welsh Government and/or HEFCW expected universities and regulated colleges to take and drew attention to:
* The Welsh Government’s LGBTQ+ Action Plan for Wales;
* The Welsh Government’s Violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence: strategy 2022 to 2026 and its Violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence: blueprint high level action plan;
* The Welsh Government’s Anti-Racist Wales Action Plan;
* HEFCW’s race, access and success policy developments; and
* HEFCW’s Well-being and health, including mental health policy developments.

16. During 2023/24, TASO published the following reports:
* What works to tackle mental health inequalities in higher education;
* Student wellbeing over time: analysing Student Academic Experience Survey data for undergraduates and taught postgraduates;
* Student mental health in 2023: Who is struggling and how the situation is changing.

17. The TASO Student well-being over time report found evidence to suggest that the following groups of students are at greater risk of poor mental health:
* Students from households with low economic status
* Students from Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic backgrounds
* Mature students
* Students who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning or have other sexual identities (LGBTQ+) and
* Care-experienced students.

18. In July 2024, the Equality and Human Right Commission (EHRC) published an advice note for the higher education sector arising from the legal case of University of Bristol vs Abrahart. Universities must take account of the information provided in the note, particularly in relation to what the EHRC now considers compliance with the law looks like based on the court findings.

19. In September 2024, the Student Space programme published online resources on navigating university life as a Black student. The content was co-created by experts with lived experience and a steering group of Black students.

20. When developing and revising their well-being and health strategies, suicide safer approaches and well-being policies, universities must consider equality and intersectionality, conduct equality impact assessments and where appropriate include related actions in their 2024/25 implementation plans.

Well-being and health funding strategies and implementation plan funding 2023/24 (£2m, universities only)

21. We expect implementation plans in 2024/25 to continue to take a ‘whole university approach’, supporting and addressing the needs of staff and students and taking account of all aspects of university life, including living and working life. Where universities choose to fund well-being and health, including mental health activity and services from non-Medr funding, please include these activities and services and the sources of funding in the plans.

22. Universities should also consider supporting the transition, progression and success of applicants and students, as this relates to well-being and health, including mental health, working in partnership with schools, colleges and other external partners.

23. 2024/25 implementation plans should account for the university’s 2024/25 funding allocations (£2m strategy funding and £2m hardship funding) and any additional resources provided from non-Medr sources and include:
i). well-being and health, including mental health, strategy objectives/intentions being prioritised in 2024/25:
ii). activities, services, training, and resources, against the objectives/intentions, including dates by when new or continuing activities, services and resources will be established and/or completed;
iii). activities, services, training and resources provided bilingually and/or separately in Welsh;
iv). activities, services, training, and resources including students at franchise/partner organisations;
v). activities, services, training, and resources for postgraduate students;
vi). activities, services, training, and resources for international students;
vii). activities, services, training and resources to secure the well-being and health of staff and students, including health affected by harassment, hate and sexual misconduct and violence, regardless of identity ;
viii). activities, services, training and resources provided specifically to, or providing information about supporting,  staff and students with protected characteristics;
ix). activities, services, training and resources that take account of the Universities UK (UUK) Stepchange: mentally healthy universities self-assessment findings and recommendations;
x). clearly identifiable actions to address gaps, priorities or recommendations identified as a result of the university’s review using the UUK self-assessment tool;
xi). confirmation of how progress against the implementation plan will be monitored and measured;
xii). an explanation of how a representative range of students, staff and interested parties have been involved in developing the plan;
xiii). an explanation of how impact assessment findings have informed the objectives/intentions, activities and services to be delivered;
xiv). an explanation of how the implementation plan’s monitoring and review will be reported to and through university governance structures.

24. In addition, we expect implementation plans to take account of equality and intersectionality through the use of equality impact assessments, including but not limited to the following groups of students:
* Disabled students and students with long-term health conditions
* International students
* LGBTQ+ students
* Postgraduate students
* Students from Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic backgrounds
* Students from a lower socio-economic background
* Students with caring responsibilities / returning after a break in education.
* Care-experienced students.

Additional well-being and health funding to support student hardship 2024/25 (£2m, universities and further education providers of higher education)

25. We strongly encourage universities and colleges, working with their Students’ Unions or equivalent body, to build on measures to address the ongoing cost of living increases impacting on well-being and health, including mental and physical health. All students, including postgraduate and international students should be considered for support, subject to need.

26. Universities and colleges must ensure that student financial support is informed by equality impact assessments.

27. Financial support may include:
i). increasing and/or extending the availability of, and criteria for, ‘hardship’ or other financial support to students most in need;
ii). ensuring vulnerable potential applicants and students are supported with information, advice and funding, as appropriate, including those with care-experience backgrounds, carers, those experiencing violence, domestic abuse, sexual violence, and asylum seekers and refugees; 
iii). ensuring that potential applicants and students with protected characteristics, including those from lower socio-economic backgrounds, are aware of all financial support, information and advice available and relevant to them;
iv). ensuring all financial information, advice and services are available and accessible in Welsh; 
v). involving students with experience of financial challenges in developing and reviewing financial support services;
vi). providing inclusive activities, resources, services and/or products at low or no-cost to support potential applicants and students experiencing financial pressures, including where this may impact on well-being, health, mental health, a sense of belonging or loneliness, the student experience, retention and success.

28. While ‘one-off’ support and activities may primarily benefit current students, some provision could support well-being, health and mental health provision in the longer-term. Longer-term sustainability might include providing web-based information and resources.

Universities should use this funding to:
* provide financial support to higher education students, by extending funding or other resources for those experiencing financial pressures, which are impacting on their student experience, well-being, health, retention and success;
* review, and promote on websites, baseline services to support applicants’ and students’ well-being and health, including mental health;
* work with unions to support the mental health and well-being of staff, including as they provide effective support to students as part of a whole-institution approach to well-being and health;
* promote and provide accessible staff training on mental health; and
* provide mental health training in Welsh for staff and students.

Directly-funded colleges should use this funding to:
* enhance and promote money advice and information services for higher education students;
* provide financial support to higher education students by extending hardship funding or other resources to support those experiencing financial pressures;
* support potential applicants and applicants transitioning into higher education provision, as well as existing students;
* measures to help address the cost of living increases on higher education students of all ages and those transitioning into higher education;
* extend, enhance or subsidise period dignity and personal hygiene products and/or clothes washing services for students;
* working collaboratively with Students’ Unions or the equivalent to ensure support provided meets the needs of higher education students; and
* involve students with experience of financial challenges in reviewing the support provided.

University and directly funded college funding allocations

Universities

29. The 2024/25 Well-being and health, including mental health, strategy implementation plan funding will be allocated in one payment, on the basis of student headcounts, as set out in Annex A.

30. The 2024/25 additional well-being and health funding to support student hardship funding will be allocated in one payment, on the basis of student headcounts, as set out in Annex B.

31. In 2024/25 we will allocate both Annex A and Annex B funding in one tranche payment in December 2024 subject to:
i). submission of 2023/24 well-being and health including mental health monitoring reports including confirmation of the satisfactory use of 2023/24 funding.

32. Submission of 2024/25 Well-being and health, including mental health, implementation plans (see template provided at Annex C and Appendix C1). The submission date for this reporting is Friday 31 January 2025.

33. We expect universities to manage and spend in full in-year their 2024/25 allocations.

34. We will reclaim any uncommitted underspend at the end of 2024/25, unless there are exceptional circumstances, and we will reclaim/withhold future funding where there is unsatisfactory or limited reporting against our monitoring requirements.

Directly-funded colleges

35. The 2024/25 additional well-being and health funding to support student hardship funding will be allocated in one payment, on the basis of student headcounts, as set out in Annex B.

36. In 2024/25 we will allocate Annex B funding in one tranche payment in December 2024 subject to:
* submission of 2023/24 additional well-being and health funding to support student hardship health monitoring reports including confirmation of the satisfactory use of 2023/24 funding.

37. 2024/25 Additional well-being and health funding to support student hardship implementation plan (see template provided at Annex D). The submission date for this reporting is Friday 31 of January 2025.

38. We expect directly funded colleges to manage and spend in full in-year their 2024/25 allocations.

39. We will reclaim any uncommitted underspend at the end of 2024/25, unless there are exceptional circumstances, and we will reclaim/withhold future funding where there is unsatisfactory or limited reporting against our monitoring requirements.

University and directly funded college monitoring requirements

40. We will monitor expenditure and the use of this funding. Our monitoring may be used to inform our reporting to the Welsh Government or to share interesting practice.

University monitoring

41. We are combining the monitoring of the £2m annual strategy implementation funding with monitoring of the additional £2m for hardship. The universities’ combined monitoring template for both allocations is provided in Annex E and Appendix E1 of this publication. (See timetable below for submission dates.)

42. Combined monitoring is intended to ease the burden of reporting against well-being and health allocations and it recognises that the universities’ implementation plans will drive the planning and use of the funding in the round.

Directly-funded college monitoring

43. For colleges a monitoring and case study template is attached as Annex F and Appendix F1. (See timetable below for submission dates.)

Timetable

44. Table 1 below sets out the universities and directly funded college submission and reporting deadlines.

Table 1

Submission and reporting requirements	Submission date
Universities completed 202425 Well-being and health, including mental health, implementation plan	Friday 31 January 2025
Directly funded colleges completed 2024/25 additional well-being and health funding to support student hardship implementation plan	Friday 31 January 2025
Universities and directly funded colleges completed 2024/25 monitoring report template	Friday 26 September 2025

Further information / responses to

45. For further information contact Ryan Stokes ([email protected]).

46. Responses to be submitted to Ryan Stokes ([email protected]).

Assessing the impact of our policies

47. We have updated our ongoing impact assessment to take account of equality, diversity and inclusion. We also considered the impact of policies on the Welsh language, and Welsh language provision within the HE sector in Wales and potential impacts towards the goals set out in the Well-Being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 including our Well-Being Objectives.

48. Our impact assessment findings include:
* identifying likely positive impacts on the following protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation. No negative impacts were identified.
* confirming that the funding supports five of the seven well-being goals and takes account of the five ways of working.
* noting that the funding guidance and monitoring seeks to have a positive impact on the Welsh Language.

Spin-outs Review Implementation: Best practices adoption list

This is a list of UK higher education providers that have voluntarily adopted the best practice policies for spin-out deal terms as highlighted in the November 2023 Independent Review of Spin-outs.

This list has been compiled by the Department for the Economy Northern Ireland, Medr, Research England and the Scottish Funding Council, based on information submitted by institutions.

This joint list will be updated periodically; the below includes higher education providers who have confirmed adoption by 1 November 2024.

Wales

Institution / Link to adoption statement/policies
Cardiff University
Swansea University

England

Institution / Link to adoption statement/policies
Brunel University London
Cranfield University
De Montfort University
Durham University
Imperial College London
Institute of Cancer Research
Keele University
King’s College London
Lancaster University
London School of Economics and Political Science
Loughborough University
Manchester Metropolitan University
Newcastle University
Northumbria University
Nottingham Trent University
Open University
Oxford Brookes University
Queen Mary, University of London
Royal Holloway, University of London
Royal Northern College of Music
Sunderland University
University College London
University of Bedfordshire
University of Birmingham
University of Bristol
University of Cambridge
University of Central Lancashire
University of Exeter
University of Kent
University of Lincoln
University of Liverpool
University of Manchester
University of Nottingham
University of Oxford
University of Reading
University of Salford
University of Sheffield
University of Southampton
University of Sussex
University of the Arts London
University of the West of England
University of Warwick
University of Westminster
University of York

Scotland

Institution / Link to adoption statement/policies
University of Aberdeen
University of Edinburgh
University of Glasgow

Purpose

1. This paper outlines proposed changes to how course (activity) transfers are treated in the achievement measures, and seeks feedback.

2. The aim is to implement the changes for the 2023/24 performance cycle.

Background

3. In 2022/23, a system for handling programme level transfers was implemented, after a consultation. We said we would then implement a method for course transfers using similar rules in 2023/24.

4. In previous cycles, a course that was transferred is treated as a withdrawal in the measures. We aim to treat transfers as a neutral outcome (excluded from the measures) if the transfer meets a set of conditions.

Proposed rules (see Annex A flow diagram)

5. A course transfer would be treated as a neutral outcome if:
* The course is listed as a transfer (LA31 = ‘4’)
* And the learner has another course which did not end in a transfer:
a). At the same provider
b). Which began after the last activity ended
(i), Or within 7 days before the end, as long as that is still after the start date
c). In the same academic year
(i), Or was an activity with the same reference code (LA06) in the following academic year
d). Which started within 21 days after the original activity ended
Or within 126 days (18 weeks) if the transfer was to the same reference code in the following academic year
e). Which was the same level or higher
(i), Unless the transfer happened within the first 8 weeks of the original activity
(ii), A2 to AS transfers are not allowed
(iii), Qualification levels are based on the Qualifications in Wales dataset if available, LA22 if not. If the new activity doesn’t have a defined level, the old activity must also not have a defined level
(iv), For multi-level courses, the most generous interpretation is taken (lowest level for the original activity, the highest level for the new activity)
And if the original activity was assessable, the new activity must also be assessable
(v), Unless the transfer happened within the first 8 week of the original activity
f). And if the original activity was a “main” activity (LA47 = ‘05’) the new activity must also be a main activity.
(i), Unless the transfer happened within the first 8 week of the original activity
g). And if the original activity was a non-generic activity (LA06 does not begin with ‘L’) the new activity must also be non-generic
h). Only one activity may be transferred to this new activity

6. If a learner transfers programme, all the courses listed as transfers within that programme are treated as neutral outcomes, whether or not they meet the above conditions. The programme transfer must meet the rules for programme transfers.

7. If an A level course was transferred in the second year, it is only a neutral outcome for the 2-year measures (A2 completion and grade outcomes). It would count as a non-continuation from AS to A2.

8. Course transfers would also be treated as neutral in the success rate calculation for the vocational programme measures if they meet the above rules. Previously all course transfers were treated as neutral in the programme success rate.

9. If a learner has been recorded as taking the same activity multiple times in a year at a provider, the activity with the latest end date will be taken. The earlier versions of the activity will be removed from the measures, whether or not they were listed as transfers.

10. Course transfers that are treated as neutral outcomes will be monitored, in the same way as programme transfers.

Impact of changes

11. The impact of these changes was calculated for the 2022/23 measures. These were calculated to illustrate impact. For speed they were calculated using college data.

Table 1a: Effect of new transfer method on FE vocational course measures, 2022/23

Transfer method	Early dropout rate	Completion rate	Pass rate
Original	9%	88%	75%
New	7%	88%	76%

Table 1b: Effect of new transfer method on FE A level course measures, 2022/23

Transfer method	Early dropout rate	AS completion rate	Retention rate	A2 completion rate
Original	13%	84%	73%	92%
New	10%	84%	73%	93%

Transfer method	A*	A* to A	A* to B	A* to C	A* to D	A* to E
Original	8%	24%	48%	70%	83%	89%
New	8%	25%	48%	70%	84%	90%

Table 1c: Effect of new transfer method on FE vocational programme measures, 2022/23

Transfer method	Early dropout rate	Completion rate	Success rate
Original	11%	86%	78%
New	11%	86%	78%

12. In the cases where a transferred activity did not meet the rules, we recorded the reason [Table 2].

13. Please note, aside from “no course found” this is probably an overcount of these reasons.

Table 2: Reason why potential transfer target was rejected for activity transfers that couldn’t be validated, FE measures, 2022/23
Note [c]: Values under 5 suppressed to protect confidentiality.

Measure type	No course found to transfer to	Transfer did not take place within 21 days	Same course in the following year: did not take place within 126 days	Activity started before transferred activity ended	Transfer from non generic qual to generic qual	This activity was already used to validate a different transfer
Vocational course	1,110	2,540	280	570	450	180
Vocational programme	295	980	0	310	140	80
A level	0	5	[c]	10	[c]	0

Measure type	Transfer not to same level or higher	Transfer from main/core category to non-main/core category	Transfer not to same or higher level of assessability	Transfer was to another academic year	All
Vocational course	85	30	10	[c]	5,265
Vocational programme	40	15	5	0	1,890
A level	5	0	0	0	25

Consultation questions

14. Considering the above proposals:

Q1	Should transfers to an activity with a different reference number in the following academic year be accepted? (Provided the transfer took place within 21 days of the original activity ending)
Q2	Transfers to the same course in in the following academic year are allowed to enable the recording of 1.5+ year courses in two-year programmes. The rule that these transfers must take place within 18 weeks is to allow for a summer break. Is the 18-week time period the right length?
Q3	Are there occasions when a new activity might start before the old activity has ended? Is a 7-day grace period long enough for this?
Q4	Are there times when a learner might reasonably transfer from an assessable activity to a non-assessable activity?
Q5	Are there times when a learner might reasonably transfer from a main activity to a non-main activity?
Q6	Are there times when a learner might reasonably transfer from a non-generic activity to a generic activity?
Q7	Are there occasions when a learner might transfer from multiple activities to a single activity?
Q8	How should valid transfers in the second year of an A level course be treated?
Q9	Do you have any other thoughts about the proposed rules?

Responses and next steps

15. We are asking for responses to this consultation by 29 November 2024, to be sent to [email protected].

16. Once we receive responses we will consider them further and send out final guidance by December.

Further information

17. Any queries should be sent to [email protected].