Date:
27 March 2015
I-Note Number:
IUIN29
Information Note
Title
2014/15 Erasmus+ grant allocation survey results
Action
For information
Audience
Pro Vice Chancellors International, International Office Directors,
International Office staff with responsibility for outward student
mobility
Executive Summary
In September 2014 the Go International programme team, based
at the UK Higher Education International Unit (IU), agreed with
the UK National Agency for Erasmus+ (the British Council) and
the Universities UK International Policy Network to undertake
research into the impact of the 2014/15 Erasmus+ grant
allocation on higher education institutions across the UK. This
research, carried out in early October 2014, looks into the effect
of the 2014/15 grant allocation on institutions.
Annexes
Annex 1: Impact of the 2014/15 Erasmus+ grant allocation survey
questions
Contact:
Leo Boe, Policy Researcher,
[email protected]
T: 02074195622
Context
1
1. The Go International programme surveyed institutions’ international offices on the following themes:

The average number of students and staff they sent abroad on the former Erasmus Lifelong
Learning programme per year.

Any shortfall in the Erasmus+ 2014/15 grant allocation.

How institutions administered their Erasmus+ 2014/15 grant allocation.

How institutions have distributed their grant allocations.

Any additional resource used by institutions

The impact of the reduced 2014/15 grant allocation on institutions’ promotional activities and
student drop-out rate

Communications from the National Agency and the International Unit
2. The UK has seen a consistent increase in the number of students accessing mobility opportunities under
the European Commission’s Lifelong Learning programme, rising from 10,827 in 2007/8 to 14,607 in
2012/13, evidencing institutions’ commitment to increasing the UK’s proportion of outwardly mobile
students. The increase in participation in 2014/15 has not been matched by increased funding from the
European Commission, resulting in institutions facing significant financial shortfalls. The combination of
increased demand, fewer drop-outs and the Erasmus+ budget remaining flat in relation to previous years
has put a strain on institutions in their attempts to fund mobilities they had committed to.
3. The new Erasmus+ programme, which will run from 2014 until 2020 covers education, youth, learning
and sport. It will include a higher education mobility component, replacing the previous Erasmus element
of the Lifelong Learning Programme. It represents an overall 47% increase on spending under the
previous programme. However, the use of back loaded annual budgets in the programme means that the
increase in funding will not be felt until the 2017/18 academic year.
4. The lack of increase in the UK’s Erasmus+ higher education budget meant the National Agency was
faced with a situation where they were unable to fund at the published rate. In order to give institutions
greater flexibility in utilising the restricted budget, the National Agency, following consultation with the
sector in conjunction with the IU and the Association of Higher Education European Officers (HEURO),
adopted an approach to funding applications from institutions that aimed to allocate all available funding
at the outset in order to provide institutions with a clear picture of the available budget. Although
2
institutions rarely receive 100% of the mobility funding they apply for , the proportion of applied for
funding allocated to each institution for 2014/15 was lower than had previously been the case; 68% of
2014/15 application numbers were met.
1
2
The survey questions can be found in Annex 1 at the end of this report
Funding is currently allocated to institutions based on a number of factors. In 2014/15 this included their accuracy in forecasting and the eventual drop-out rate.
5. While Erasmus+ mobility funding will only see a significant increase from 2017/18, it is important to note
3
that future Erasmus+ mobility funding for the UK is partly performance related ; an interim fall in the
number of students and staff going abroad would have a corresponding effect on future funding levels.
This has significant implications for UK HE maintaining and increasing its outgoing Erasmus+ numbers
and for the success of the UK Strategy for Outward Mobility. The IU is working closely with the National
Agency to ensure the sector is fully involved in future decisions on how to operate in this new context.
6. The UK National Agency for Erasmus+, the British Council in partnership with Ecorys UK, manages the
Erasmus+ programme. The British Council leads on the higher education element of the programme.
Findings
Responses to the Survey
7. There was a good spread of respondents from across the nations and
mission groups, representing the breadth and diversity of UK HE. 86
respondents began the survey, with 63 completed responses. The figures
outlined throughout the report relate only to the completed responses.
8. A large proportion of respondents said that they would use their
2014/15 grant allocation to send both staff and students abroad, with
some saying they would use it to fund graduate traineeships.
Number of respondents who intend to use their 2014/15 grant
allocation to send students, staff and graduate trainees abroad
9. According to respondents, the average number of students and staff participating in Erasmus mobility per
year over the last three years were 156 and 19 respectively.
Average number of Erasmus+ students per institution by mission group
3
Average number of Erasmus+ staff per institution by mission group
Erasmus+ higher education mobility funds are allocated based on three factors: a population factor, correction factors in terms of differences in "cost of living" and "distance
between capitals", and performance. If UK levels of mobility drop then its performance, and therefore its overall allocated budget, would be affected.
Adapting to shortfalls
10. Respondents were asked to indicate the difference between the 2014/15 grant allocation and the figure
they requested. All institutions reported a shortfall in funding. 25% of respondents reported that their
institution had to make up over €100,000. A number of institutions noted shortfalls as high as €300,000.
In many cases, institutions had to make additional investment to cover the cost of extra staff time,
adapting promotion and communication strategies, as well as covering the costs of mobility itself. The
size of institutions’ respective shortfalls is as follows:

33 institutions (52%) had a shortfall of less than €50,000

9 institutions (14%) had a shortfall of €50,000 to €74,999

5 institutions (8%) had a shortfall of €75,000 to €100,000

16 institutions (25%) had a shortfall of over €100,000
11. Institutions were asked to identify how they had administered the 2014/15 Erasmus+ grant allocation.
Responses indicate that there was no single model put into place by institutions to make up their shortfall.
Some sought to reduce mobility costs by limiting the amount of time students spent abroad or the amount
of funding per mobility period. Some institutions vired Erasmus+ funds that were originally requested for
staff mobility and recent graduate traineeships to fund student mobility, while others diverted Erasmus+
organisational support funds. Many institutions also committed central resource to offset their shortfalls.
45
41
40
35
31
31
30
25
19
20
15
10
5
0
The use of zero- The virement of other
grants for some or all Erasmus + mobility
of the mobility period grants to fund student
mobility
The virement of a The use of alternative
proportion of the
sources of funding to
Erasmus +
support Erasmus
Organisational
mobility
Support grant to
maintain participation
rates
How institutions administered their Erasmus+ grant allocation for 2014/15
12. In some cases, and in line with National Agency advice, institutions reduced the cost of mobility. Others
gave zero-rated grants for some or all of their students’ mobility periods, resulting in students receiving
less funding than they anticipated for their period of mobility.
Impact of the 2014/15 grant allocation
13. All respondents emphasised their commitment, in principle, to sending students and staff abroad through
Erasmus+.
14. When surveyed on the consequences of the 2014/15 grant allocation on future promotional and
marketing strategies, institutions indicated that the uncertainty and lack of confidence that many staff now
have about future funding allocation will significantly affect how they promote Erasmus+ to students and
staff. 44 responses said that the new grant allocation had affected promotion strategies for staff and
students for 2015/16.
15. Many respondents cited that they would be scaling back the promotion of staff mobility and exercise more
caution in communicating future mobility opportunities to students. For example, 20 responses cited that
the 2014/15 grant allocation had had an impact on their institutions’ promotion strategy for staff for
2015/16. 20 also expressed concerns that levels of interest from students and staff are at risk of falling,
due to the lack of detailed information institutions have to refer to when promoting Erasmus+ mobility.
16. When asked whether the grant allocation had had an impact on institutions’ promotional strategy for
2015/16, 44 respondents said it had while 19 said it hadn’t.
Responses to the question ‘Has the 2014/15 grant allocation had an impact
on your institution's promotion strategy for Erasmus+ 2015/16’?
17. 31 respondents cited that their institutions had vired money from other Erasmus+ funding to cover student
mobility. 18 responses reported that it is likely that staff mobility will be reduced, given students are a
higher priority.
18. Institutions have had to adapt their communications to students following the uncertainty surrounding the
grant allocation for 2015/16. Some institutions are concerned that the lack of detail will mean that study
abroad will lose credibility amongst students. Several respondents noted that they will need to be more
cautious in how they promote Erasmus+ to future applicants, in terms of the length of time students can
go abroad and the amount of funding available. Some cited concerns that this would affect internal
communications to existing students and the information institutions make available during open days.
This was a particular concern for respondents which see outward mobility opportunities as a significant
recruitment tool.
19. Fifteen respondents said that the grant allocation process had had an impact on dropout rates for staff
and students. Some respondents report that this was partly due to their institutions not actively
discouraging drop-outs. Others have said that it is too early to tell whether the 2014/15 grant allocation
has affected dropout rates.
20. Other changes institutions have implemented to ensure a smooth delivery include introducing fixed
application deadlines across departments and covering unexpected costs, for example extra staff support
for communicating with students.
21. Seven responses said that International Office staff had to respond to pressure from senior staff to cut
back on Erasmus+ activity while others stated that this is likely to happen in the future.
Communications on the Erasmus+ programme
22. Respondents were asked to provide feedback on the communications they received about the Erasmus+
programme in 2013/14 and 2014/15 with reference to the National Agency and the IU.
23. Three responses reported that their individual queries to the National Agency were handled well. In
addition, five welcomed the National Agency’s attendance at the Association of UK Higher Education
European Officers (HEURO) conference in May 2014 and the briefings they delivered across the UK in
July 2014.
24. Overall, however, institutions expressed dissatisfaction with the performance of the National Agency as
the body responsible for communicating Erasmus+ developments to the HE sector. 56 responses
indicated the need for greater transparency, frequency and honesty on the part of the National Agency in
communicating critical information to the sector such as when they would receive payment. Many raised
concerns about delays in communication and in receiving related documentation, though some note that
these were in part due to the European Commission providing the programme contract late in the year.
25. Enthusiasm for the programme from International Office staff and senior management had reduced as a
result of both the shortfall and the inadequate communications from the National Agency. For example,
nine responses reported there was pressure from senior management to reduce Erasmus+ activity.
26. Respondents stated that their institutions benefitted from:

The National Agency’s presence at the HEURO meeting in May 2014

The National Agency’s briefing event in July 2014

Responses by the National Agency to individual queries

IU updates and information notes

The National Agency’s helpdesk service
Conclusion
27. The UK higher education sector has been successful at increasing the proportion of outwardly mobile
students and staff year-on-year through the Erasmus Lifelong Learning Programme since 2006/7. This
demonstrates institutions’ commitment to outward mobility and reinforces the importance of a UK Strategy
for Outward Mobility. Increased international experience will benefit UK graduates by increasing their
employability skills and their ability to compete in the global labour market. Over the last decade, higher
education institutions have successfully developed outward mobility promotion strategies and new and
innovative opportunities to achieve higher numbers of outgoing students.
28. As a result of this success, UK institutions have faced an unprecedented and difficult financial situation,
when the budget did not increase in line with growing demand. This has been compounded by a
perceived lack of communication from the European Commission and the National Agency, which has led
to frustration and concern in the sector. The timing of information to institutions about their respective
2014/15 grant allocations meant that they had to act quickly to keep numbers high and meet the
expectations of students and staff as best they could. Indeed, ensuring that students are given a fair deal
has been challenging and time-consuming for institutions and has put considerable pressure on staff.
This has meant that institutions have not been able to increase the number of students going abroad as
they had hoped or that many students have been disappointed with the grant amounts received. There is
a risk that, as a result, fewer students will be interested in outward mobility opportunities in the future and
it has already resulted in less enthusiasm for the Erasmus+ mobility programme from staff responsible for
study abroad programmes.
29. If institutions have to rely in part on other Erasmus+ funds (including organisational support funds and
funding initially committed to staff and graduate trainee mobility) or on internal funds to ensure acceptable
student participation senior management may become less supportive of outward mobility programmes.
30. The negative perception of Erasmus+ mobility amongst staff and a potential future lack of funding for staff
mobility risks having an adverse effect on student participation. Any reduction in staff mobility will not only
put UK Erasmus+ mobility funding at risk but it will also likely have an impact on student numbers;
academic staff who have benefitted from mobility opportunities act as excellent ambassadors for study
abroad and can have a significant multiplier effect on student mobility.
31. Without clearer and more proactive communications, respondents cited there is a risk of a fall in student
participation due to:

A perception among students that changes in the grant rate make study or work abroad
unaffordable

Peer reports of negative experiences with uncertainties about logistics and funding

Drop-outs not being actively discouraged due to budget uncertainties

Uncertainty among institutions about the level of funding available, resulting in scaling down
student mobility operations

More widely, institutions flagged that a lack of detailed information to convince students that
outward mobility is a worthwhile option
32. A fall in outgoing student numbers would affect future UK funding levels and lead to the UK falling further
behind as a European sending country, which in turn could also negatively impact upon UK-EU university
partnerships.
Recommendations
33. The experience of all parties involved in the 2014/15 grant allocation process has allowed us to draw the
following conclusions about the importance of future communication strategies between the sector and
the National Agency:

Frequent communication from the National Agency to the right stakeholders is needed to ensure
the messages get to relevant staff quickly.

Briefings from the National Agency are useful for the sector but should happen as early in the
process as possible. Proactive communication from the National Agency is needed, anticipating
the requests and anxieties of the sector.

The National Agency should prioritise communication about the details of the backloaded
Erasmus+ programme budget so that institutions can plan their allocations prior to 2017/18 and
offset concerns that institutions has about further increasing participation in student mobility.

The National Agency should provide a clear statement for institutions to include in their studentfacing communications in order to support the promotion of mobility in a credible way.
34. To maintain an increase in participation in Erasmus+, the National Agency, the National Authority (BIS),
the Go International programme team and the higher education sector need to work together to ensure
that funding is allocated in such a way as to enable a continued rise in participation.
35. In order to ensure that the UK higher education sector can continue its success in increasing participation
in Erasmus+, and to guarantee the success of the UK Strategy for Outward Mobility as part of the UK
sector’s approach to international education, institutions should receive substantial, regular and
transparent information, advice and guidance on the Erasmus+ programme and budget from the National
Agency and the Go International programme to support their planning cycles and organisational
strategies.
36. In order to meet the sector’s expectations, the National Agency needs to adapt the way it communicates
on Erasmus+. Institutions have made it clear that the more information they receive, and the earlier they
receive it, the better they can manage student and staff expectations. Respondents suggested
communications from the National Agency could be improved through:

Monthly bulletins with clear summaries, key messages, action points and deadlines, clear and
simple use of terminology with key contact information

All communications from the National Agency and the IU should go to the same people in
institutions

More information webinars from the National Agency

Early communication about 2015/16 allocations

Statement on the reason for delays which the institution could disseminate to students to
reassure them and to demonstrate that the delays are due to external factors beyond the
institution’s control.
37. This report notes that the National Agency has also undertaken a survey on the communications and
impact of the 2014-15 Erasmus+ higher education mobility funding distribution, and is producing a
summary report with action points for improvement.
Impact of the 2014/15 Erasmus+ grant allocation
The UK Higher Education International Unit (IU) is collecting information about how institutions have been affected by issues relating to Erasmus+ grant allocations for 2014/15. Responses to this survey will help to identify trends in how institutions have managed Erasmus+ mobility this year and will inform discussions between the IU, the National Agency and BIS about future Erasmus+ arrangements. This follows the IU working closely with the National Agency to encourage and facilitate sector consultation on how to approach the funding shortfalls for Erasmus in 2013/14 and 2014/15. The IU is also interested in supporting the sector in the future management of Erasmus+ mobility through identifying and sharing anonymised case studies. Please indicate if you are happy for the information provided to be shared more widely on an anonymous basis, and whether you are happy to be contacted for followup conversations. Please respond to this survey by 5pm on Wednesday 1st October. If you have any questions please contact Anne Marie Graham at [email protected] or on 020 7419 5434 About you and your institution
1. Institution (optional)
5
6 2. Name and email address (optional)
5
6 3. Where is your institution based?
j England
k
l
m
n
j Wales
k
l
m
n
j Scotland
k
l
m
n
j Northern Ireland
k
l
m
n
4. Which mission group is your institution a member of?
c Russell Group
d
e
f
g
c Million+
d
e
f
g
c University Alliance
d
e
f
g
c GuildHE
d
e
f
g
c None
d
e
f
g
Other (please specify) Page 1
Impact of the 2014/15 Erasmus+ grant allocation
5. What is the average number of students per year who have been sent on Erasmus in
the last three years?
5
6 6. What is the average number of staff who have been sent on Erasmus in the last three
years from your institution?
5
6 How your institution dealt with Erasmus funding in 2014/15
7. What is the size of your institution's Erasmus+ shortfall for 2014/15?
j < €50,000
k
l
m
n
j €50,000€74,999
k
l
m
n
j €75,000€100,000
k
l
m
n
j €100,000+
k
l
m
n
Other (please specify) 8. How did your institution administer your Erasmus+ grant allocation for 2014/15? Tick
all that apply
c The use of zerogrants for some or all of the mobility period (taking into account student profiles, for example reducing or removing d
e
f
g
the grant for students undertaking salaried work placements) c The virement of other Erasmus + mobility grants to fund student mobility, eg moving resources from staff mobility
d
e
f
g
c The virement of a proportion of the Erasmus + Organisational Support grant to maintain participation rates
d
e
f
g
c The use of alternative sources of funding to support Erasmus mobility
d
e
f
g
Other 9. Have you used your 2014/15 grant allocation for any of the following programme
activities? Tick all that apply
c Student mobility
d
e
f
g
c Staff mobility
d
e
f
g
c Recent graduate traineeships
d
e
f
g
Other (please specify) Page 2
Impact of the 2014/15 Erasmus+ grant allocation
10. Has the shortfall required additional resource? If so how much and what kind
(financial, human resource, other)?
5
6 11. Has the 2014/15 grant allocation had an impact on your institution's promotion
strategy for Erasmus+ 2015/16? Please refer to student mobility, staff mobility and
recent graduate traineeships, as appropriate
j Yes
k
l
m
n
j No
k
l
m
n
If yes, how? 12. Has the 2014/15 grant allocation had an impact on the rate of dropout from
Erasmus+ at your institution? Please refer to student mobility, staff mobility and recent
graduate traineeships, as appropriate
j Yes
k
l
m
n
j No
k
l
m
n
If yes, please provide more detail 13. Has there been pressure from senior management at your institution to reduce
Erasmus activity as a result of the 2014/15 grant allocation?
j Yes
k
l
m
n
j No
k
l
m
n
Further detail / Other 14. With reference to the communications from the IU and the National Agency about
the 2014/15 grant allocation, what worked well and what could be improved in the future
regarding the type and frequency of communication to the sector?
5
6 Page 3
Impact of the 2014/15 Erasmus+ grant allocation
15. The IU is monitoring the impact on the sector of the Erasmus+ grant allocation for
2014/15. Where possible, we would like to collect more detailed information on the
experience at individual institutions, so we can report feedback to the National Agency
and inform future discussions with BIS. Complementing your answer to the questions
above, please share with us in more detail any additional information on the impact to
your institution. (Optional)
5
6 16. Would you be happy to be contacted directly for followup conversations about
your institution's experience?
j Yes
k
l
m
n
j No
k
l
m
n
17. Would you be happy for us to use information you have provided as an anonymised
case study?
j Yes
k
l
m
n
j No
k
l
m
n
Page 4