The NSP @ UHHow going beyond financial support contributes to student success and retention

Stephane Farenga@StepFareEdu

Little bit about me…

Research & Evaluation Officer in Outreach & WP at Hertfordshire

Background of evaluating student experience programmes, particularly employability

1st year EdD student: investigating success/retention amongst WP students

NSP refresher/policy context

Direct, means-tested support 2013/14 is second of three years £100m/£3k in government funds match funded by HEIs

2004 HE Act – shifting costs on to student & quasi market 2011 – Students at the Heart of the System

NSP latest in a history of student funding reform used to attract students (Callender and Wilkinson, 2013)

Perceived impact

Institutional

Access to HEo Student awareness (lack thereof)o Late identification – “deadweight loss”

Retention & successo Direct financial support has secondary benefits

(Bowes et al. 2013 and 2014) and (Callender and Wilkinson, 2013)

UH NSP model

UH NSP model

o £1k fee waiver

o Accommodation

o Laptop

o Monthly memberships

o Mentoring: unique to UH since 2012/13

Mentoring

o Unique across sector

o Peer 2 peer

o Beyond financial supporto Academico Social

o £300 diverted from NSP

2013/14 @ UH

What elements of the NSP have greatest value?

Student characteristics

Type of support required

Mentoring

Retention @ UH

10% of NSP students withdrew in 2012/13o 5% across UH

31% of NSP students in 2013/14 considered withdrawing at some point (but didn’t)

Methodology

546baseline data

236mid-year 164end-year

30%• Three surveys across the year and focus

groups

Results – NSP elements

NSP element Most useful

Accommodation 35%

Book voucher 32%

Laptop voucher 31%

Restaurant voucher 27%

Mentoring 11%

NSP element Impact

Accommodation Financial

Book voucher Financial

Laptop voucher Academic

Restaurant voucher Financial

Mentoring Academic

Results – NSP elements

8 out of 10 valuable

22% might have dropped out

NSP – Quotes

“I found myself getting quite stressed and depressed quite a lot throughout the year, however, the facilities provided through the NSP helped me a great deal in getting through most of my work load.” Female NSP recipient

“It absolutely did help. I didn't have much money to begin with when I spent every last penny I'd earned over the summer on university essentials to bring here with me.” Female NSP recipient

Student traits – Support required

2x students needed

more support than first predicted

32%

On-campus vs off-campus

16% (Halls) vs 43%required a lot of support

Student traits – Grade prediction

  Before After Change

1st 24% 14% -42%

2:1 55% 50% -9%

2x achieved a lower grade than predicted

Student traits – Attainment

Student traits – Fitting in

1 in 4 found it easier to fit in

70% are happy with their level of integration

Mentoring - Expectations

Peer 2 peer and subject specific 72% had contact with their mentor

Listening to academic concerns Answering questions about modules Sharing experience Technical academic help

Mentoring – Quotes

“I needed guidance to help me in the right direction and to clarify my thoughts and ideas”

“It’s always good to have someone who’s been through it before to guide you”

Mentoring - Tasks

Over half get help for 2 or more tasks

Mentoring - Impact

Was it crucial to success?

The more you engage…the better your grade?

Students living off-campus 3x as likely to praise Mentoring

“Just” 28% said yes

32% who are satisfied with their grade engaged significantly with Mentoring

NSP withdrawal rate

10% 2012/13

vs

12% 2013/14

(cohort size doubled)

2014/15 – What’s next?

Continue to invest

Students consulted

Holistic support: academic, social, employability

Conclusion

Real case for varied support—not just financial

Financial models like NSP can provide platform for this support if prepared to invest resources

Support needs to be varied—go beyond £££