Practicum Report Administration of Third Level Student

Administration of Third Level Student
Grants: towards a more integrated system
Practicum Report
Student Name
Brendan Franks
Cathal Small
Student Number
98067028
98545272
Class
MECB
MECB
RESEARCH SUPERVISORS
DR. TREASA HAYES / MR. RENAAT VERBRUGGEN
Submitted – Friday Aug 1, 2003
DECLARATION
We hereby certify that this material which we now submit for assessment for the
programme of study leading to the award of Master in Electronic Commerce, is entirely
our own work and has not been taken from the work of others save and to the extent that
such work has been cited and acknowledged within the text of our work..
Cathal Small
ID No: 98545272
Brendan Franks
ID No: 98545272
Date: 01/08/2003.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We wish to express our gratitude to the following people who assisted us during
the course of this study:
Name
Workplace
Ms. Jackie Byrne
Trinity College Dublin Student Fees Department
Ms. Sandra Coffey
Waterford Institute of Technology Finance Department
Mr. Bridget Daly-Lynam
Kildare VEC
Ms. Sharon Egan
Dun laoighre/ Rathdown County Council
Ms. Denise Freir
Ms. Kathleen Hartigan
Dr. Treasa Hayes
Ms. Nicola Healy
Mr. Barry Kehoe
Mr. Brian Kennedy
Ms. Nadeen Mangan
Ms. Mary Meehan
Mr. John McEvoy
Ms. Catherine McGrane
Ms. Mary Mooney
Ms. Claire Murphy
DCU Registry
University Limerick Finance Office
Dublin City University Business School
Dept of Education & Science Student Support Unit
DCU
Dun laoighre/ Rathdown County Council
Information Services, Dept. of Social Welfare and
Family Affairs
Dept of Education & Science Student Support Unit
Central Applications Office
Dublin City Council Grants dept.
AIB Bank DCU
Cork VEC
Ms. Martina O Brien
South Dublin County Council
Ms. Fiona O’Meara
DCU Finance Office
Mr. William Priestley
President, USI
Mr. Stephen Rathally
Kildare County Council Grants dept.
Ms. Sylvia Roddie
UCD Bursar’s Office
Ms. Roisin Ryan
Trinity College Dublin Treasurers Office
Mr. Dan Smith
North Tipperary County Council
Ms. Maree Tucker
North Tipperary VEC
Mr. Renaat Verbruggen
Dublin City University School of Computer Applications
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Almost 50% of all Irish third level students receive state-funded grant aid. The
administration of this scheme is carried out by a widely dispersed network of
local grant authorities spread throughout the country, and has remained virtually
unchanged over the past 40 years.
This report examines the administration of the current scheme, gathers the
opinions of key informants, and explores the possibility of improving it using
emergent technologies. We recommend transforming the present scheme to a
central administration system built around Internet technology, similar to that
implemented by the Central Applications Office (CAO) in 2000, which has proven
highly successful.
Our research, involving student surveys and interviews with college and local
grant authority personnel, found there to be unanimous agreement that the
current system is inefficient, no longer adequate and in need of reform. 90% of
students surveyed felt that the system could and should be improved, rating it as
slow, fragmented and inconsistent. The main faults cited referred to a
cumbersome application process and an unacceptably low quality of service
offered in terms of the timeliness of grant payments.
Local grant authorities are overpowered and understaffed, victims of a
bureaucratic system that guarantees the majority of their time is spent performing
repetitive data input chores instead of essential value-adding duties. College staff
are left in the unenviable position of involuntary intermediaries between
dissatisfied students and overworked grant authority personnel, all trying to work
in the same direction towards a common goal but unavoidably hindered by an
inept system.
This report proposes an alternative system that addresses these issues, and
offers complete standardisation of the third level grants process. It involves
students registering and applying through an Internet portal page for their grant,
obtaining immediate notification of eligibility and receiving grant payments direct
to their bank account in a predictable timely manner. This system will reduce by
up to 70% the current 14-page application form, automatically detect errors, and
eliminate the uncertainty of late payments. College finance offices will be entirely
disintermediated, while local grant authorities will experience an expected 80%
workload reduction.
This will all result in significant cost-savings (estimated to be at least €2m
annually), increased efficiency and a much improved communication
infrastructure, providing certainty, consistency, and simplicity for each party
involved.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION ..................................................................................................................
ACKNOWLEGEMENTS................................................................................................... i.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................... ii.
TABLE OF CONTENTS. ................................................................................................ iii.
LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................ iv.
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... v.
LIST OF APPENDICES .................................................................................................. vi.
CHAPTER 1 OVERVIEW. .......................................................................................... 1.
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
Introduction..................................................................................................... 1
Background ..................................................................................................... 1
Overview of Current System .......................................................................... 2
Objectives of Project....................................................................................... 4
Organisation of Study ..................................................................................... 5
Scope and Limitations of Study...................................................................... 6
Summary ......................................................................................................... 6
CHAPTER 2 RESEARCH FINDINGS. ....................................................................... 7
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
Introduction..................................................................................................... 7
Background ..................................................................................................... 7
Mapping the Current Process.......................................................................... 8
Research Findings: Evaluation and Perspectives of Scheme........................ 11
Business Process Re-engineering ................................................................. 19
Summary ....................................................................................................... 20
CHAPTER 3 PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE TO CURRENT SYSTEM................ 21
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
Introduction................................................................................................... 21
Overview of Alternative System................................................................... 21
An Outline Model of Proposed System ........................................................ 22
Evaluation of Alternative System ................................................................. 29
Summary ....................................................................................................... 31
iii
CHAPTER 4 TECHNICAL IMPLEMENTATION ................................................. 32
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
Introduction................................................................................................... 32
Requirements Analysis ................................................................................. 32
System Functionality .................................................................................... 33
Implementation ............................................................................................. 36
Prototype ....................................................................................................... 37
Summary ....................................................................................................... 40
CHAPTER 5 SYNTHESIS AND CONCLUSION..................................................... 41
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
Overview of Study ........................................................................................ 41
The Future..................................................................................................... 42
An Alternative System.................................................................................. 42
Concluding Comments.................................................................................. 43
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................. 44
BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................... 55
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1
Survey Question Topics
11
Table 2.2
Percentage of Disqualified Applicants
14
Table 2.3
Arrival dates of first round of first Instalment
grant cheques (DCU 02/03)
16
Table 2.4
Distribution of dates of first instalment for City
of Dublin VEC and Tipperary NR CC received
at DCU Finance Office for the academic year
2002/2003
17
Table 3.1
Central Applications Office – Online take-up
levels
24
Table 4.1
System Operations
33
v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1
Distribution of Funds
3
Figure 1.2
Illustration of Complexity of Current System
4
Figure 2.1
Colour Scheme
9
Figure 2.2
Mapping of Current System
10
Figure 3.1
New Applications Process
23
Figure 3.2
Model of new decision procedure
26
Figure 3.3
Filtering Process
27
Figure 3.4
Model of new distribution procedure
29
Figure 3.5
New Communication Infrastructures
30
Figure 4.1
System Functionality
35
Figure 4.2
Application Form Builder 1
38
Figure 4.3
Application Form Builder 2
38
Figure 4.4
Application Form Builder 3
39
Figure 4.5
Application Form Builder 4
39
Figure 4.6
Error Detection
40
vi
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix I
Grant Scheme Parameters 2003
Appendix II
Student Questionnaire
Appendix III
Local Grant Authority Interview Schedule
Appendix IV
College Finance Office Interview Schedule
Appendix V
ASME Mapping
Appendix VI
Estimated Financial Savings
Appendix VII
Sample Online Application Scenario
vii
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW
1.1 Introduction
This report examines the administration of the third level student support scheme
in Ireland. The current processes are mapped and the views of key informants
are gathered and delineated providing a list of the inefficiencies embedded within
the current system.
A proposed alternative to the current system is described in detail together with a
thorough evaluation of the projected benefits to each of the relevant
organisations. In addition, a brief explanation of the required technology for the
proposed system and its implementation is provided.
1.2 Background
It has long since been acknowledged by all sides involved in the administration of
the current third level student grant system in Ireland that the scheme is
inefficient, outdated and in need of an overhaul. This sentiment stretches back as
far as 1993 when then Minister for Education, Ms. Niamh Breathnach T.D.
established an advisory committee to produce a report on third level student
support with the following terms of reference:
To examine and make recommendations as appropriate on the most
effective and efficient organisational arrangements for the administering of
the third level student support schemes. (Department of Education &
Science 1993:3)
The advisory committee reported as follows:
1
The present system of student support is fragmented, cumbersome and
very confusing for grant applicants. There exists overlaps and duplication
with up to 70 different organisations involved in the administration of the
grant schemes. Payments are too frequently delayed and students are
often disadvantaged by various administrative problems in the system.
(Department of Education & Science 1993:28)
Key recommendations were made in this report but were not implemented, due
largely to a change of government in 1994. A decade on, these problems still
exist, and are accentuated by the ever growing number of grant recipients.
Recently, the present Minister for Education Noel Dempsey T.D. accepted that
the current administration of the student support schemes needs to be improved.
The Department of Education & Science (2003:1) announced on July 7th 2003
that the third level student grant is to be increased by 15% with immediate effect.
However, despite much publicity and widespread acceptance of a flawed system,
no foreseeable changes are expected to the administration of the grant scheme.
1.3 Overview of Current System
Approximately 56,000 Irish third level students receive financial aid from the
Department of Education either through a higher education grant (HEG) or a
vocational education committee (VEC) scholarship (Department of Education &
Science 2003a:20). The scheme is entirely decentralised and administered by a
large number of agencies – 66 in all, which are primarily county councils and
VECs, and will be referred to hereafter as grant authorities. A student wishing to
apply for a grant must obtain the appropriate application form, complete it, gather
relevant documentation (e.g. statements of income) and then forward the
information to his/her corresponding local grant authority. The application is then
means tested by that grant authority against the eligibility parameters that are set
out by the Minister for Education each year.
2
Successful applicants are paid their grant in instalments by their grant authority
via the student’s college finance office at various stages during the academic
year. It is the responsibility of each finance office to inform students of their grant
arrival and to distribute them. Fig 1.1 illustrates the trail of grant money from the
Government right through to the student.
Fig 1.1: Distribution of Funds
Government
Student
Department Of Education and Science
College Finance Office
Local Authority
The current system necessitates a complicated mesh of communication
infrastructure between the 66 grant authorities and the 36 educational institutions
as depicted by Fig 1.2 below.
3
Fig 1.2: Illustration of Complexity of Current System
Local Grant Authorities (66)
(Sample)
Educational Institutions (36)
(Sample)
North Tipp
IT Carlow
TCD
South Tipp
WIT
DCU
North Dublin
DIT
UCC
South Dublin
CIT
1.4 Objectives of Project
The aim of this report is to analyse the existing grant administration process with
regard to HEG and VEC grants, highlight its inefficiencies, suggest improvements
and outline the foundation for a technical solution, based on these findings. The
report can be broken down into 2 main sections:
Ø An examination of the current system: Several techniques have been
employed to examine the present scheme. Important key information was
gathered using surveys and interview schedules. A number of Business
Process Re-engineering techniques were applied and the system and its
processes are illustrated using diagrams and tables.
Ø A recommended alternative system: Technology is used as the basis for
an innovative solution that is devised to be simple, fair and economically
efficient. Simplicity requires that the scheme be coherent, transparent and
4
understandable while keeping administrative costs to a minimum and yet
substantially improving the quality of service provided to students.
The most recently published Department of Education & Science (2003a) figures
show overall administration costs totalling €43.5 million. In the same year,
student grants and scholarships were €137.5m. It was not possible to get precise
department figures for costs relating to student grant administration. Clearly
administrative costs for the department as a whole are far too high supporting the
economic justification for developing a more cost-effective grant management
system. This study concentrates on one area within the department where
administration expenses can be significantly decreased.
1.5. Organisation of Study
Following on from this opening chapter which introduces the project, Chapter 2
presents the major findings of our study of the current system. The existing
scheme is mapped out in-depth and evaluated. The perspective of each group of
actors within the system is brought to light, highlighting flaws and showing that
the scheme is widely perceived to be inadequate.
Potential improvements to the current system are explored in Chapter 3. A
detailed explanation is provided of the possible benefits of using e-commerce
technologies in the application, decision and distribution procedures.
How such improvements could be achieved is investigated in Chapter 4: a
comprehensive description of a modern technology oriented system is provided
along with details of its implementation. The study concludes with Chapter 5,
which summarises the key points of the report and presents some final
comments.
5
1.6. Scope and Limitations of Project
This report presents an exploratory study of the third level student grant
administration scheme. As this scheme is massive in scope, the time constraints
on our work precluded us from undertaking a more in-depth study. Therefore, the
data gathered from surveys and interview schedules cannot be interpreted as
being statistically representative.
Much attention has been given recently to the fairness of the criteria for
assessment of grant eligibility and also the possible reintroduction of third level
fees. This is a focused report that excludes these issues, concentrating entirely
on the administration of the scheme and its potential improvement. The de
Buitleir report (1993), acting under the direction of the then Minister for
Education, Ms Niamh Breathnach T.D, concentrated on the fairness of the
system and also highlighted some general areas where administration could be
improved. Our report is an in depth scrutiny of the administration of the system
based on the involvement of applicants and the staff in agencies dealing with the
process on an ongoing basis.
Also, we have attempted to suggest a solution that transcends the necessity for
any new legislation (such as transferring the scheme to a new government
department), thereby ensuring a realistic workable alternative to the present
system.
1.7 Summary
The current third level student grant administration scheme is exceptional in that
there seems to be unanimous agreement that the system is inefficient. It appears
that the only reason that it has not been overhauled already is political
bureaucracy, lethargy and indecision. The remainder of this report suggests why
and how the system should be overhauled.
6
CHAPTER 2
RESEARCH AND FINDINGS
2.1 Introduction
The core administrative processes of the current grants scheme are examined in
this chapter. These activities are mapped out and analysed in terms of both time
and cost. The viewpoint of each group of actors involved is determined and
outlined. These perspectives, along with several Business Process Reengineering (BPR) techniques, are employed to seek out process inefficiencies
and identify value-adding steps.
Our initial objective was to identify and understand the existing process and its
underlying structure. The current scheme is evaluated, providing the motivation
and justification for a new system. A platform is set for an innovative alternative
to the present scheme that tackles the aforementioned inefficiencies head-on
using e-commerce and its underlying technology as its principal foundation.
2.2 Background
The third level education system in Ireland is broad in scope and encompasses
the university sector, the technological sector, the colleges of education and
private, independent colleges. The first three groupings, which comprise 34
institutions, are autonomous and self-governing but are substantially state
funded. There are 7 universities, 14 institutes of technology and 13 colleges of
education located throughout the Republic offering programmes at degree,
national diploma and national certificate levels in a wide variety of subjects
(Education Ireland (2003)).
Each of the 26 counties in the Republic of Ireland has at least 2 grant authorities
to whom students may apply for financial assistance - a county council (CC), and
7
a vocational educational committee (VEC). Some counties have more than two,
i.e., County Dublin has 4 CCs (Dun Laoighre/Rathdown CC, Fingal CC, South
Dublin CC and Dublin City Council) and 2 VEC’s (City of Dublin VEC and Dun
Laoighre VEC). In general, however, each county has one of each.
The Higher Education Grant is the main student grant and is distributed through
the County Councils in three instalments spanning the academic year. European
Social Fund grants are payable to students attending ESF-funded courses.
These include most certificate and diploma courses and are distributed through
the VECs together with VEC scholarships.
The most recently published statistics by The Department of Education (2003a)
show that there are approximately 119,991 third level students attending 36 third
level institutions in Ireland. Of these, 56,000, or 48%, receive government
financial aid totalling approx €137.5m. Given that almost half of all students at
third level are dependent on some type of grant aid, this endorses the importance
of having an efficient system to distribute this money.
2.3. Mapping the current process
Fig 2.2 presents a visual representation of the administration of the current grant
scheme and the illustration confirms the complexity of the system. The colour
scheme allows for the simple interpretation of this complex diagram. The
rectangles represent the main entities in the current system. The main entities
are responsible for each task (oval shape) of the same colour. For example; the
applicant is responsible for the tasks of requesting the form and also submitting it
as can be seen in Fig 2.1. Therefore both of these tasks are colour co-ordinated
with the applicant entity.
8
Fig 2.1: Colour Scheme
Submit
Applicant
form to
Request
form from
The scheme can be separated into three key activities:
1. Application Process: Each applicant must acquire from and return to
his/her local grant authority a completed 14-page grant application form.
Additional documentation such as a P21, P45 or P60 must also be
provided as statements of income, together with other documentation,
based on the applicant’s personal circumstances.
2. Decision Process: It is then the responsibility of each grant authority to
review all applications and means test them against the income
parameters as set out by the Minister for Education (see Appendix I) each
year. Applicants are then contacted and notified of their eligibility.
3. Distribution Process: The grant is distributed from each grant authority to
successful applicants via their college of study. The college bursar’s office
receives the grant cheques and is then responsible for ensuring that each
recipient is aware of its arrival and then collects it.
9
Fig 2.2: Mapping of current system
10
11
2.4. Research Findings: Evaluation / Perspectives of scheme
In order to gain some insights into the current scheme in operation, it was
decided to interview a range of informants representing the various players in the
process. These included students, local grant authorities, and educational
institutes. The findings from this research follow:
2.4.1. Student opinion
An exploratory study was carried out of student opinion regarding the
administration of the grant system using a questionnaire (see Appendix II). Due
to time constraints, the survey was confined to 20 third level students currently in
receipt of the grant. It covered a widely dispersed sample set, comprising
students from 6 various colleges / institutes of technology in receipt of a grant
from 8 different grant authorities.
The survey sought information in the following areas depicted in Table 2.1:
Table 2.1: Survey Question Topics
Questions
1-4
5-7
8 - 10
11 - 13, 19
17, 20, 22
14 - 16, 18, 21
Topic
Application form obtainment and completion
Additional documentation
Application form submission
Interaction with college in relation to HEG
Reaction to suggested improvements
General opinions on process
The main findings of the survey are as follows:
Ø 90% of those surveyed found the grant application form to be either
difficult (35%) or very difficult (55%) to complete. Students found it to be
unduly lengthy, complex and arduous.
12
Ø 75% felt that they were not notified early enough regarding whether they
were successful or not in their application.
Ø 80% expressed dissatisfaction with the distribution process citing late
payments, lack of communication, and overly long queues at collection
points as major problems.
Ø 75% said that they would prefer and would be willing to apply online for
their grant.
Ø If given the option, 95% would prefer to have their grant paid directly into
their bank account by their local grant authority.
Ø 85% would prefer to receive their grant payments more frequently on
either a weekly (55%) or monthly (30%) basis.
Ø 90% felt that the system could and should be improved.
Summarising these findings, it can be seen that there exists a patent
dissatisfaction amongst student regarding the current system, a frustration at its
flaws and a clear desire for change.
To substantiate the student position, an interview was conducted with William
Priestley, President of USI (Union of Students in Ireland). Mr. Priestley remarked:
As the quantity of third level students in receipt of the grant has risen
continually over the past number of years, the administration of the system
has remained stagnant. No initiatives have been implemented to cope with
and reflect this ever-increasing workload, and what’s left is the current
system which is unreliable and no longer sufficient.
13
2.4.2 Local Authorities
Interviews were held with 7 key informants representing the grant authority
perspective – representatives from Kildare, South Dublin, Dublin City Council and
South Tipperary, North Tipperary County Council grant departments together
with Kildare and Cork VEC grant departments. Respondents were asked about
application and distribution statistics and several other topics, as set out in a
prepared interview schedule (see Appendix III).
The main points to emerge were:
Ø Each grant authority has its own unique way of processing grant
applications and distributing payments. Some authorities are more
efficient than others. Some students may receive grants weeks or even
months before others. Systems vary greatly among different local
authorities. This can cause difficulties for both students and colleges.
Ø Grant authorities are obliged to keep a record of every application they
receive. This means that every single application, including those that are
ineligible, sent to the wrong grant authority, or incorrectly completed must
be manually entered into a computer system and saved.
Ø The decision process whereby each applicant is means tested cannot be
carried out until the scheme’s parameters (such as income cut-off point)
have been set by the Minister for Education each year. Interviewees felt
that these schemes are issued much too late (July 7th in 2003). This leads
to a scramble to complete the process in a short few weeks after the
Leaving Certificate results are published and before colleges open. The
result is that students do not know if they qualify for a grant before they
have to decide finally on the course that they will pursue.
14
Ø The vast majority of applications are received during the summer months.
This is the time of year when staff holidays are unavoidable, leading to
inevitable delays in processing the substantial number of applications
received.
Ø Nearly 40% of all grant applicants do not qualify for the grant, and 15%
are sent to the wrong grant authority. Table 2.2 below illustrates this point
with figures relating to a range of local grant authorities. However, each of
these unsuccessful and misdirected applications must be processed,
consuming valuable resources.
Table 2.2: Percentage of disqualified applicants
Local
New
New
%
Grant
Applications Applications Disqualified
Authority
Received
Granted
North Tipp
151
55
333
CC
%
Sent to
Wrong
Dept
25
Kildare CC
1065
648
39
15
Dublin City
Council
2012
1452
28
10
Kildare
VEC
796
602
24
20
Cork VEC
2142
1275
40
20
South
Dublin CC
South Tipp
CC
1197
628
47
5
350
154
56
10
Total
7895
4910
38
15
Ø Approximately 30% of all applications are incomplete or invalid. This
means that parts of the application have been filled out incorrectly or not
at all, or that the necessary accompanying documentation is not provided.
15
These applications cannot be processed and are delayed until further
communication and clarification from the applicant is received.
Each grant authority is required to annually re-test ongoing recipients to
determine if the recipients income level has changed, making him/her ineligible to
receive the grant. For example, in the academic year 2002 / 03, Tipperary North
County Council issued 151 new grants and retested the 320 students that
qualified for grant renewal. This re-testing phase adds considerably to their
workload and therefore, often does not occur due to a scarcity of resources and
the substantial extra processing necessary.
Ø Each grant authority must maintain a communication link with the college /
institute of technology of each student receiving a grant within its
jurisdiction. This renders the distribution process very cumbersome as
illustrated earlier in Fig 1.2. These links are then used to check and
validate student registration before a grant instalment is made and money
transferred to the relevant college.
Ø Grant authorities often receive applications that belong to a different office
(i.e., VEC instead of county council) and regularly have to pass
applications between one another. It is the responsibility of the original
recipient authority to keep a record of all applications received before
forwarding them to the correct grant authority. This leads to added double
entry chores.
2.4.3. Educational Institutions
The role of colleges within the current system is twofold – that of validating a
student as being fully registered, and also accepting and distributing grant
payments as they arrive. Interviews were held with staff from the Finance Offices
of DCU, UCD, WIT, and UL, the Treasurers office and Student Records office of
Trinity College Dublin, and the Registrar’s office of both DCU and UCD to try and
16
gain an understanding of the college viewpoint regarding the present grants
scheme (for interview schedule, see Appendix IV). The key issues that emerged
were:
Ø Grants from the various authorities are sent out in completely random
batches. This leaves the Finance Office in the position of an uninformed
intermediary, unable to answer most student queries. They are unhappy
with the system and estimate that at certain times of the year, up to 90%
of their time can be taken up carrying out grant-related work.
Tables 2.3 and 2.4 contain data obtained from the DCU Finance Office
summarising the arrival dates of first instalment maintenance grant cheques
received during the academic year 2002/03. Table 2.3 illustrates the disparity
between the start dates of grant authority distribution schedules;
Table 2.3: Arrival dates of first round of first Instalment grant cheques
(DCU 02/03)
County Council
Month
No. received
October
24
November
3
December
1
March
1
Month
September
October
November
January
VEC
No. received
3
25
1
1
Table 2.4 gives the distribution of dates of first instalments for two sample grant
authorities (City of Dublin VEC and Tipperary NR CC), again received by DCU
Finance Office during the academic year 2002/03. As is clear from the table, a
wide variation exists between batch arrival dates. This means that two students
attending the same college, receiving the same instalment from the same grant
authority, may receive their payments several months apart. This occurs for no
other reason than the grant authority’s overburdened workload.
17
Table 2.4: Distribution of dates of first instalment for City of Dublin VEC
and Tipperary NR CC received at DCU Finance Office for the academic year
2002/2003
Tipperary S.R.
County Council
4 Sept
1 Oct
31 Oct
28 Nov
3 Dec
6 Jan
17 Feb
18 Mar
City of Dublin VEC
7 Oct
21 Nov
5 Dec
19 Dec
7 Jan
20 Jan
22 Jan
11 Feb
25 Feb
28 Mar
16 April
2 July
Ø The inefficiency of each college having to link with up to 66 grant
authorities was highlighted. Different departments within each college are
affected. The registry has to file separate registration details with each
grant authority. This requires constant links to monitor registration
throughout the year, while the finance department requires links to all
grant authorities to deal with student queries and problems as they arise.
Ø Prior to registration, to avoid paying registration fees, students must show
proof (usually in the form of a letter from their grant authority) that they
qualify for the grant. Many eligible students have not received this letter by
registration day and are subsequently left with no alternative but to pay the
fee of €670 (DCU 2002/03) themselves. Understandably, it is very difficult
for students depending on grant aid to generate this fee. They also face
the problem of not having a set date on which this fee will be reimbursed
to them by their grant authority.
18
Ø When the fees finally are refunded, the colleges receive them in batches,
i.e., for all students. The college then has the burden of processing each
student independently and generating individual cheques, creating further
delays.
In summary, there is a general acceptance amongst staff from each college
interviewed that the process is in need of repair. College Finance Office
personnel have been shown to be unable to deal efficiently with the distribution of
grants. Much complexity and confusion is created by having to link up with so
many grant authorities, each with its own procedures, resulting in students
queuing for long periods, frequently not knowing whether or not their cheque is
available for collection.
2.4.4 General Observations
Ø Due to the large number of grant authorities in the country, it is confusing
for first time applicants to know where to go, who to apply to, what is
needed, and the differences between the various support schemes that
are available.
Ø Within some colleges the grant is collected in three instalments, others
receive it monthly. Receiving payments of over €800 raises issues
regarding students’ ability to manage their finances and can cause
considerable cash flow problems. Also, there is no guarantee as to when
payments arrive at colleges (see Tables 2.3 and 2.4 above).
Ø The situation can arise where students receiving the grant leave college
without informing the educational institution or their grant authority. They
continue to receive the grant, thereby defrauding the system. Currently,
the ability in such cases to track this illegal activity is very inadequate.
19
Ø The grant application form requires some of the following documentation
to be attached: P21, P60, P45, a statement of income etc, depending on
the applicant’s personal situation. These documents have to be retrieved
from the Revenue Commissioners, an employer or from the Department of
Social and Family Affairs among others, and this process can take
considerable time. For example, an allowance of up to six weeks is
advised when applying for a P21.
2.5 Business Process Re-engineering
The research undertaken highlighted the inadequacies of the current system and
the need to formulate a more streamlined system for grant processing. Business
Process Re-engineering (BPR) was the main technique employed to accomplish
this task. Klein (1994:221) explains it as:
The rapid and radical redesign of strategic, value-added business
processes – and the systems, policies, and organisational structures that
support them – to optimise workflows and productivity in an organisation.
Thus, BPR is process-oriented; it concurrently pursues breakthrough
improvements in quality, speed, and cost; it is holistic, both leveraging
technology and empowering people; and it starts with a willingness to
abandon current practices.
BPR focuses on the need to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of a
business process and can be applied to an individual process if desired. Hammer
(1990:23) describes it as a ‘fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of
business procedures to achieve dramatic improvements in critical measures of
performance such as cost, quality, service, speed and customer satisfaction’.
Davenport (1993:10) depicts BPR as ‘stepping back from a process to inquire as
to its overall business objective, and then effecting creative and radical change to
realize orders-of-magnitude improvements in the way that objective is
accomplished’.
20
BPR aims for dramatic improvement (Hammer 1990:12), is holistic by nature and
involves ‘broad scope, ambitious reach, and profound change’ (Klein 1994:223).
These were all characteristics which we deemed necessary and such techniques
were accordingly employed in our pursuit of an improved system.
The ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers) process mapping is a
technique which decomposes a process to its lowest level and is therefore
extremely helpful in developing an in-depth understanding of that process, whilst
also identifying areas of inefficiency.
We constructed an ASME map (see Appendix V) which clearly details the
different stages in the grant distribution process, beginning with the grant
authority and ending with the student receiving their grant and the finance office
returning a validation form. The entire process is estimated to take at least 8
days. The map sorts each step into an appropriate category (Value-adding, Non
value-adding, Transport, Inspection), whilst also highlighting the time taken to
perform each stage and the estimated delays.
2.6 Summary
The aim of this chapter was to explore the current grant system in operation.
Details presented showed how cumbersome this system is. The views of various
players in the system, including students, local grant authorities and educational
institutes, endorsed the inadequacy of the system. Finally, BPR was reviewed, as
it is the main tool used to fashion a more appropriate system, which will address
some of the shortcomings of the current approach.
21
CHAPTER 3
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE TO CURRENT SYSTEM
3.1 Introduction
Our research findings, presented in the previous chapter, have provided
compelling evidence of a wholly inefficient system that could and should be
transformed, yielding cost and timesaving benefits for grant authorities, students
and educational institutions alike. The more research conducted, the more
obvious it became that there was huge scope for improvement. As our
understanding grew, we began brainstorming possible areas of improvement.
This chapter describes an alternative to the current system and the projected
benefits that its implementation would realise. This alternative is based on a
partially centralised system built around recent technological developments and
the use of existing resources. The description provided here is of a realistic
scheme that provides an immediate alternative to the present system. It is the
outcome of applying several BPR techniques to the current processes in order to
weed out inefficiencies and retain value-adding steps.
3.2 Overview of Alternative System
Our alternative system is built around the opportunities and benefits offered by
information and communication technology. The key components are:
Ø Online applications: students may apply over the Internet via a customised
homepage where a more simple user-friendly form is dynamically built
tailored to each applicant’s circumstances.
Ø A Central Agency: needs to be setup that is responsible for accepting
these online applications and allocating them to appropriate grant
22
authorities for authentication. This central control body is also solely
responsible for distributing grant payments.
Ø Application Filtering: The decision process is automated as far as possible
where the responsibility of local grant authorities is reduced to that of
authenticating applications against provided documentation. Means
testing is applied automatically informing applicants instantaneously of
their eligibility for a grant.
Ø Direct Payment: Grants are distributed by the central agency direct to
each student’s bank account on a weekly or monthly basis.
This alternative scheme revolves around a centralised computer and database
system that every actor of each process can access, albeit with differing levels of
user privileges. The centralised control system will be highly automated to
capture applications, filter them, transfer them to the relevant grant authority,
capture registered lists from educational institutions, cross-reference these and
make payments, with only limited manual work necessary to monitor these
processes.
3.3 An Outline Model of Proposed System
This section presents details of the three key processes; application, decision
and distribution, and describes in detail how each would operate under an
alternative system.
3.3.1 Application Procedure
Applicants can avail of an Internet website where they can apply online, monitor
their application and track their grant payment schedule. This site will be the
primary hub of contact between students and their grant authority.
23
Taking into consideration that all applicants may not have access to the Internet
at present, applicants can choose between filling out and submitting their
application form online via the Internet or sending it directly to their grant
authority, as is the current practice. Each online applicant must register and
answer a series of questions. Based on these answers, a shorter user-friendly
form is dynamically created containing only relevant information queries.
Applicants can log in and out of the system at will, saving their progress as they
go along, meaning they do not have to fill out the form in one sitting. Fig 3.1
illustrates the new application procedure.
Fig 3.1 New Applications Process
24
Students who have received a grant previously will have the capability of
renewing their status over the Internet. Proof of renewal will also be available
from their home page for printing as soon as the ongoing means test is
completed. In cases where the ongoing means test may require further
documentation to be made available (e.g., P21), uploading will be available
through the web.
Regarding the feasibility of getting students to apply online, the Central
Applications Office (CAO) experience is encouraging. The CAO began taking
online applications in 2000 and has been extremely successful in encouraging
student uptake of the online service with a 63% online application rate in 2003.
Table 3.1 shows the rise in demand of the service since its induction. We
recommend that a similar model be implemented for grant applicants, augmented
by a large-scale awareness campaign within second level schools. Because of
the widespread use of technology and the online benefits of applying for support,
a greater uptake level is expected.
Table 3.1 Central Applications Office – Online take-up levels
Year
2003
2002
2001
2000
Online Applications
% of Total Applications
37,978
63
23,367
39
6,393
11
3,683
6
Source: CAO (2003:17)
Applicants will be encouraged to submit online and be made aware of the
considerable advantages to them of utilising this option;
Ø The ability to dynamically build their own application form based on
individual circumstances.
Ø The capacity to track the progress of their submission and grant
payments online, rather than contacting their local grant authority or
college finance office;
25
Ø The facility to catch invalid submissions instantly as they are submitted,
significantly reducing errors;
Ø Students will also benefit indirectly from the decreased levels of manual
data entry carried out by local grant authorities saving valuable time and
freeing up resources.
However, the online system only partly addresses the issue of additional
documentation, such as statements of income, and their necessity to the entire
process. Applicants must still obtain these records from the Revenue
Commissioners, Department of Social and Family Affairs or their employer and
forward them to their local grant authority. The facility will be put in place to
upload any such documents. A transfer of the entire process to either of these
government departments, or a thoroughly integrated system with each of these
departments would alleviate the current process, but such a recommendation is
beyond the scope of this project.
Applicants will be made aware from the earliest stage possible of how and why
these documents must to be obtained, heightening awareness of what is required
weeks, even months in advance, helping to prevent late submissions.
3.3.2 Decision Procedure
The decision process should be automated as much as possible. Online
applications will be received and processed by the central control body and the
means test applied automatically. However, in the case of most applications,
human intervention is essential to make the final judgement call. The central
control body will be responsible for filtering applications, making only relevant
applications available to each local grant authority for acceptance or rejection.
26
In view of the substantial number of ineligible applications, as highlighted earlier
in Table 2.2, this will reduce the overall workload to an appreciable extent of up
to 40% on new applications alone. Fig 3.2 demonstrates the process.
Fig 3.2 Model of new decision procedure
Local grant authorities will not be disintermediated as they are adding value to
the process at present. In the short-term, their expertise will mean increased
speed and throughput, offering the greatest immediate benefits.
To centralise fully would be to change for the sake of change and would not
reflect the expected gradual uptake in online applications and hence the gradual
decrease in manual – intensive labour required. Complete centralisation would
result in an initial bombardment of mainly offline applications to one single
department, leading to an enormous manual workload, which should ultimately
be avoided. Therefore, while the online option is introduced, the process will
remain spread out over the country, utilising the resources already available.
27
However, applying online will create the illusion of centralisation while
geographically dispersed resources will be treated as though they are
centralised. The utilisation of shared databases, coordinated communication links
and a standardised processing systems will achieve the benefits of flexibility and
quality of service that centralisation brings. Also, invalid and obvious ineligible
applications will be filtered out by the system (see Fig 3.3).
Fig 3.3 Filtering Process
28
As is obvious from the above presentation, there is a need for a 2-step approach
in changing from the current highly fragmented system to a centralised one. Only
when the majority of applications are received online and the subsequent manual
workload has decreased substantially will it be practical to fully centralise the
system. This may be achieved in due course.
Offline applications will continue to be received by local grant authorities, but will
be input into the central system, and can then be transferred electronically
between authorities, as necessary. The means test will then be applied and the
filtering process begins as previously explained. All offline applicants will be
encouraged to communicate through the website if possible, and issued with a
password for potential future use.
3.3.3 Distribution Procedure
We recommend that all grant payments be distributed direct from the central
control body to an account with a financial institution of the student’s choice. The
maintenance grant should be paid in equal monthly instalments into such an
account. This procedure would have the advantage of affording some degree of
financial certainty to students thus alleviating the type of budgeting problems that
the present system creates. Banking details will be requested on the application
form and will be dealt with in a secure manner.
Timelier payments would be guaranteed by the control body having a dedicated
communication link with each college allowing real - time access to a list of
registered students within that college. Colleges will no longer be required to sort
lists after registration and subsequently transfer these lists via the conventional
mail system to each individual authority, as is presently done. This new
distribution process is described in Fig 3.4:
29
Fig 3.4 Model of new distribution procedure
This direct distribution ensures that money is transferred as efficiently as possible
from the government to the student, avoiding delays and eliminating non – value
adding steps.
Government
Control Body
Student Bank A/C
3.4 Evaluation of Alternative System
The new system brings simplicity and certainty to what had been a complicated
and confusing mesh of communication. Colleges will now deal with a solitary
control body as opposed to 66 individual grant authorities and likewise, each
grant authority need no longer maintain links with up to 36 colleges (see Fig 3.5).
30
Fig 3.5 New Communication Infrastructures
The Internet based application procedure is aligned with the current Irish
government initiative of bringing as many public services online as possible. Not
only does going online provide instant access to application forms and quicker
submission capabilities with error prevention, but it eliminates the intensive
manual work involved in receiving and manually inputting data as is currently
carried out by each local authority. As Hammer (1990:32) recommends
‘information should be captured once, at the source’.
The status of an application from submission to acceptance, along with monthly
payments can be monitored via the web. Proof of receipt will be available for
printing shortly after submission pending local authority authentication. The
responsibility is shifted to the student to print this proof prior to registration,
eliminating the need to send out letters, reducing administration expenses and
saving time.
Currently, just under 40% of all applications do not qualify for the grant. By
automating the decision process, little or no human intervention is necessary to
process these ineligible applications. Also, approximately 15% of applicants
apply to the wrong grant authority, leading to system double entry and significant
31
processing delays. This problem is eliminated by the automated filtering system,
as applicants will no longer need to know e.g. whether they should apply to a
county council or VEC.
A scheme of making grant payments directly to students’ bank accounts will
disintermediate college Finance Offices, and eliminate with it the inherent delays,
uncertainty and confusion of the current system.
While a detailed costing of the current scheme, and the subsequent savings of
implementing an alternative system, is beyond the scope of this study, it is
estimated that significant cost savings are probable. In an effort to quantify these,
based on data supplied by an interviewed local grant authority, estimated savings
were calculated, and suggest an overall cost reduction of €2.1 million per annum
(see Appendix VI).
3.5. Summary
An alternative system to handle student grants has been set out in this chapter.
Its main components have been explained and evaluated. The objective is to try
to standardise the process across all grant authorities providing a more efficient
service for all involved. The next chapter, following on from this description of an
alternative system, deals with the technical aspects of its implementation.
32
CHAPTER 4
TECHNICAL IMPLEMENTATION
4.1 Introduction
The information technology infrastructure that is necessary to be put in place for
the alternative system to succeed is detailed in this chapter. The system and its
operations are delineated. A prototype has been built and is referred to
throughout, as it represents what is believed to be an excellent model for a future
solution.
4.2. Requirements Analysis
As the infrastructure already exists in the form of the Internet for students,
colleges and grant authorities to access a centralised control system, the
foremost challenge is the design and definition of such a system. Allowances
must be made for the gradual migration from offline to online applications
facilitating both student and local grant authority application entries.
The key requirements of a centralised control system are deemed as follows:
Ø The creation, development and maintenance of an interactive user-friendly
website where students can log in, seek information, make enquiries,
submit error-free applications and monitor their progress.
Ø An intelligent algorithm that having captured applications can
automatically review them, apply the means test and filter out definite
ineligibles. This agent will group successful applications into sorted
batches for each local grant authority to authenticate.
Ø The development of an interface available to each local grant authority for
manually inputting applications, authenticating application details against
relevant documentation and confirming means test decision results.
33
Ø The development of an interface available to each educational institution
for the upload, storage and updating of student registration details.
Ø The implementation of a secure reliable automated method of transferring
payment directly to individual bank accounts.
Table 4.1 illustrates the operations afforded to each user of the system.
Table 4.1: System Operations
College
Control Body
Register online
Grant
Authority
Create application
View Status
View application
Create application
Edit application
Confirm registration
Edit postings
Edit application
View postings
View status
Make postings
Edit status
Refute registration
Edit status
Add proof
View registration
Applicant
Print proof
Authorise payment
4.3 System Functionality
The system will be a combination of front-end interfaces customised for each
group of system users linking up to a back-end database responsible for the
secure and efficient capture and storage of all information (registration,
application, payment details etc). Application programs will run on top of this for
applying an automated means test, filtering and authorising direct payment
procedures.
4.3.1 Student Interface
Having registered, students will be required to log in to the website using their
unique CAO number and password as means of identification and verification.
This will bring them to a personalised portal page from which all further
communication will take place. A customised application form will then be
34
dynamically created based on the answers given to 10-12 key questions. The
student will have the provision to fill out this form in several sittings as their
progress will be saved at the end of each session. When the form is eventually
submitted, the means test will be automatically applied and the student will be
informed immediately regarding their eligibility.
Successful applicants will be informed of which documents of authentication are
required and to which grant authority they should be posted. Alternatively, the
student may upload these documents. Upon confirmation of qualification, a
posting will be made to the portal page with information regarding authentication
procedure, provisional payment dates etc. Unsuccessful applicants will receive a
posting explaining their failure to qualify.
The purpose of the web site initiative will be to shift responsibility from grant
authorities to grant applicants. It will be up to the applicant to enter data correctly,
visit the site regularly and provide the information needed. If all is done correctly
the speed of their application will be greatly enhanced.
4.3.2 Local Grant Authority Interface
Local grant authorities will be required to input and upload all offline applications
and documentation received. This will ensure that applications sent to improper
grant authorities can be transferred automatically and double entry is eliminated.
The interface for this task will be similar to that for student submissions with a
customised application form initially generated.
Grant authorities will also receive applications that have been filtered towards
them by the system. These applications will be manually reviewed against all
additional documentation received. If validated, a posting will be made to the
student’s portal page confirming authentication, application status modified and a
letter of proof made available for printing. Should any difficulty arise (such as
35
insufficient documentation), the grant authority will make a posting outlining the
problem and directing the student how to proceed.
Fig 4.1 describes the functionality of the system in terms of its two principal
users: students and grant authorities.
Fig 4.1: System Functionality
36
4.3.3 College Interface
This will be a simple subsystem which college registry staff can log into and
confirm student registration details. Should the college become aware of a
student dropping out of college; they will be responsible for updating the system
accordingly. During registration, college staff may also verify student grant
eligibility through this interface.
4.3.4 Payment
Once confirmation has been received that a successful applicant has registered
at an appropriate college, the payments process can begin immediately. The
control body will authorise the transfer of funds from the Department of Education
and Science directly to the students’ bank accounts.
4.4. Implementation
The Irish Government already has the required resources put in place to
immediately begin the development and implementation of a centralised control
system. Many public services have previously been put online (e.g., revenue
online, driving test application etc.), and many more are in the process of being
transferred (e.g., passport application, small claims etc). The technical
infrastructure is already in place to make automated payments direct into
individual bank accounts. This system is currently used by the Department of
Social Welfare for making various payments such as child benefit and social
welfare, and could easily be extended.
4.4.1 Usability
The success of this system will hinge on its uptake levels. These in turn will be
highly dependent on the simplicity of the system. Therefore, the objective should
be to create a website that is crisp, clean, easy to use and professional in
37
appearance. Usability testing should be carried out extensively throughout its
development to ensure simplicity and consistency.
4.4.2 Security
Security will be a key issue to keep bank details and personal information
undisclosed. A SQL Server database running on a mirrored clustered web server
should be the pre-eminent choice for a backend system offering powerful, fast
and efficient data utilisation along with strong security features.
4.4.3 Flexibility
In the future, there exists a strong possibility of coordinating the central grant
system with other computer systems used by the Revenue Commission and the
Department of Social Welfare. Therefore, any applications specifically written
should be as flexible as possible strongly supporting the integration of diverse
systems.
4.5. Prototype
A prototype system was developed to demonstrate a web-based solution and its
proposed benefits. The prototype is restricted to the front end of the system
demonstrating the application process and illustrating its immediate benefits such
as application form size reduction. A sample scenario is available (see Appendix
VII) exemplifying the scale of this reduction (e.g., from 14 to 5 pages). Below are
some screenshots from the student interface, illustrating the submission process
including the steps taken to dynamically create this customised application form;
38
Fig 4.2: Application Form Builder 1
Fig 4.2 displays the first question that a student is asked when applying for a
grant (e.g. are they a mature, dependent or independent student?).
Fig 4.3: Application Form Builder 2
In Fig 4.3, the next question asked is based on the answer to the previous
question (e.g. if the student is dependent on their parents, the next query will
concern their marital status).
39
Fig 4.4: Application Form Builder 3
Fig 4.4 lists the relevant information requests made to a student financially
dependent on their father alone.
Fig 4.5: Application Form Builder 4
40
These dynamic steps dramatically reduce the size of the grant application form
and considerably simplify the entire process as can be seen in Fig 4.5.
Our research found that one of the major problems encountered by local grant
authorities was the receipt of application forms that were incomplete or
erroneous. This problem is partially solved in our prototype system by java
scripts written to immediately detect applicant errors. Instead of separate help
pages, form assistance is provided in the shape of pop-up boxes that appear
when the mouse is placed over specific form words, input fields’ etc, as
demonstrated in Fig 4.6 below;
Fig 4.6: Error Detection
4.6. Summary
The IT infrastructure required for the proposed system of third level grants
administration has been detailed in this chapter. The system is based around the
principals of simplicity and consistency providing the utmost operational
effectiveness for each user. The prototype model developed and described
demonstrates several of the achievable efficiency improvements. The system
utilises technological innovation to produce better faster and more cost-effective
processes.
41
CHAPTER 5
SYNTHESIS & CONCLUSION
5.1 Overview of Study
This study has examined the administration of the third level student support
scheme in Ireland. A holistic approach was adopted, incorporating the points of
view and perceptions of all the key actors within the scheme, which were
gathered and studied in-depth. What emerged was a widespread consensus that
the current scheme is severely flawed in several key areas, creating extensive
complication and confusion.
Students rate the system as being slow, fragmented and inconsistent. From the
cumbersome application procedure, through to the unacceptably low quality of
service offered in terms of the timeliness of notification of grant eligibility and the
payment of the grant, students are disillusioned with the present scheme.
Local grant authorities find themselves overpowered and understaffed, often
taking on the role of scapegoat for system inefficiencies rooted in a structure that
is beyond their management and control. They are the chief victims of a
bureaucratic system that guarantees the majority of their time is spent performing
repetitive data input chores instead of essential value-adding duties.
Colleges too find themselves as the most obvious target for student enquiries
and expressions of annoyance when flaws in the system begin to reveal
themselves. Staff are often left in the unenviable position of involuntary
intermediaries between dissatisfied students and overworked grant authority
personnel, all trying to work in the same direction towards a common goal but
unavoidably hindered by such an inept system.
42
5.2 The Future
Change is not only necessary but inevitable. For long enough, each party has
persisted with the burden of the present system. With the new boundaries scaled
by current technology and the opportunities created, the old approach is no
longer acceptable and is in urgent need of being overhauled. With the
administration of the system needing substantial upgrading, considerable work
needs to be done to establish appropriate systems, redesign forms and improve
information channels.
As technology and the Internet in particular, become increasingly interwoven into
our everyday lives, new opportunities are presenting themselves. This report has
outlined an alternative system that uses this technology to address many of the
criticisms of the current approach. This alternative is realistic, simplistic, and
immediately implementable at a low cost. It addresses the key areas of
inefficiency: complicated application process, slow decision and notification
procedure, and erratic payment schedules.
5.3 An Alternative System
This new system is an Internet -based centralised computer structure, similar to
that implemented by the CAO in 2000, which now has a 63% online uptake. The
system operates as a communication hub accessible to students, colleges and
local grant authorities providing relevant information and a means of carrying out
appropriate processes online.
Applicants may register and apply online through an allotted personalised portal
page. A shorter simpler application form is dynamically generated and custom
built for each student, offering up to a 60% reduction on the current 14-page
application document. The system provides error detection, the saving of
43
incomplete applications for later submission, and immediate notification of
eligibility, along with further instructions.
During the changeover period, local grant authorities may use the system to
submit applications received through the post. They will also be responsible for
authenticating all successful applicants from within their vicinity, which will be
filtered towards them, through statements of income received. Applications
received in error will also be inputted and transferred electronically, removing the
problem of double entry which occurs frequently in the current system.
Registration details will be provided via a direct link to each college.
Finally, the alternative system will be responsible for the timely and secure
payment of all grants. These payments will be made directly into recipients’ bank
accounts bypassing local grant authorities and college Finance Offices. The
maintenance grant will be paid on a monthly basis in a uniform manner to all
recipients.
5.4 Concluding Comments
The system of allocation of third level grants merit particular attention as it
impacts on over 56,000 third level students; accounting for almost 50% of the
total student population at third level. The inadequacies of the current system are
widely acknowledged. An alternative system has been formulated in this study,
which addresses many of the shortcomings of the present system.
If such a revised system were to be implemented, it would be of benefit to the
students themselves and all the various agencies that labour under the unwieldy
system that is now in place. It is considered that this project, if implemented,
would provide a firm foundation on which to anchor progress.
44
APPENDICES
45
APPENDIX I
Grant Scheme Parameters 2003
2003 Maintenance Grant Schemes, to apply to the 2003/04 academic year
Ordinary Maintenance Grant Rates
Full Maintenance
Part Maintenance (75%)
Part Maintenance (50%)
Part Maintenance (25%)
Non-Adjacent Rate
€2,885
€2,165
€1,445
€ 720
Adjacent Rate
€1,155
€ 865
€ 580
€ 290
Special Rates of Maintenance Grant for 2003/2004
Grant
Adjacent Rate
Non – Adjacent Rate
Standard Grant
Top – Up Amount
Total Grant
€1,155
€645
€1,800
€2,885
€1,610
€4,495
Reckonable Income Limits for purposes of the Maintenance Grant Schemes
Part
Part
Part
Full
Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance
(25%) and
(50%) and
(75%) and
and Full
Full Fees
Full Fees
Full Fees
Fees
Less than 4
€32,000
€34,000
€36,000
€38,000
4–7
€35,165
€37,365
€39,560
€41,760
8 or more
€38,180
€40,565
€42,950
€45,335
*Full Student Service Charge is paid where income is at or below this level.
Number of
Dependent
Children
Part Fees
(50%) only*
€40,000
€43,955
€47,720
Where two or more children (or the candidate's parent) are pursuing a course of approved study in
third level or further education, the reckonable income limits may be increased by increments which,
for the 2003/2004 academic year are as follows: €3,870 where there are two such children
€7,740 where there are three such children and so on by increments of €3,870.
ENDS
46
APPENDIX II
Student Questionnaire
This is a survey of student opinion regarding the administration of the current third level
student grant scheme. The survey is confined to students in receipt of the grant.
1. Who told you of where to apply for a grant?
CAO
School
Knew already
Rang appropriate grant authority
2. Was the application form easily obtained?
Yes
No
3. How difficult was it to fill out the application form?
Very Difficult
Difficult
Reasonable
Easy
Very Easy
4. Did you know where to send your application; VEC or Co. Council?
Yes
No
5. Did you know that other documents were needed (P21, P60)?
Yes
No
6. Was it difficult to get these forms?
Yes
No
7. Did waiting for these forms (P21, P60) cause your application to be late?
Yes
8. Was your application late?
Yes
No
No
9. Was your application filled correctly first time, or was it sent back by the local
grant authority for clarification?
Yes
No
10. What needed to be clarified?
Simple mistake on form (e.g. PPS Not incorrect)
Missing document
47
Other, explain.
11. Were there any problems receiving your grant from your college?
Yes
No
12. Did you have proof that you were a grant recipient at registration?
Yes
No
13. Had you to pay registration fees?
Yes
No
14. Can the grant system be improved?
Yes
No
15. If yes, how?
Explain
.
16. Is it easy to get answers from your grant office?
Yes
No
17. Would it be easier if the grant were paid directly into your bank account?
Yes
No
18. Which part of the process causes the most trouble?
Application Form
Problems at registration
Getting the grant within college
Getting answers to queries
19. In relation to grants, is the college doing a good job distributing them?
Yes
No
20. Would you prefer to apply online for your grant?
Yes
No
21. In relation to grant is your local grant authority doing a good job?
Yes
No
22. Which would you prefer, grant payments made
Weekly
Monthly
3 instalments per annum
48
APPENDIX III
Local Grant Authority Interview Schedule
Application
process
To determine how applicants know where to apply for student
support and the types of support available. The awareness levels
within the general public of local grant authorities and their role. How
application forms are distributed to applicants and received when
completed.
Workload
To determine the size of the process at present, how many
applications are being dealt with annually and the number of
applicants who receive assistance. Try to estimate the workload at
local authority level. The numbers of applications received in error
and have to be re-sent to applicants, what’s involved with these
applications. How problematic are late applications? Explore the
area of collaboration between different grant authorities and how
systems are integrated?
Processing times of applications. What’s involved with the means
test and the manual input of data? Any opinions they have on areas
where improvement could be achieved.
Financial trail
The financial trail in respect of the local authority. When and how is
finance received from the government and how it is distributed to
students? Reasons for delays and problems that may exist within
this process that would have a knock-on effect on students. Reasons
for the inconsistencies between grant authorities.
Educational
Institutions
The role of local authorities with regard to their link with educational
institutions.
It was already understood the complexities that exist but needed to
determine exactly how problematic linking with a possible total of 36
institutions actually is.
General
The general opinion of staff within these departments; is there job
satisfaction with what their doing? Any recommendations they may
have to improve the process. For research purposes any suggested
improvements which have come to light over the last few years or
any expected improvements in the near future.
49
APPENDIX IV
College Finance Office Interview Schedule
Interview schedule for finance offices within educational institutions
Distribution
Methods of distributing grants to students. How often are
grants received and problems that exist in this area? Also
the reimbursement of fees, how is this handled?
How are students informed that their grant is available for
collection? To determine the main delays with the current
system.
Workload
How much of their time is spent on grant related work.
Does this interfere with other tasks they have to
complete? Is overtime a necessity?
Rectifying problems
Any set protocol as to how student problems are solved.
How and the difficulties of dealing with so many different
grant authorities. Are problems common in nature and
easily rectified?
Bank proposal
It was obvious early in the research phase of the project
that the distribution of grants could only go in one
direction – directly into the student’s bank account.
This proposal was presented to staff.
General
The general view of the current process, problems that
occur most frequently and could be eliminated.
50
APPENDIX V
ASME Mapping
51
APPENDIX VI
Estimated Financial Savings
Current cost of process based solely on wages
Grant Authorities
Finance offices (college)
Registries (college)
No.
Staff
%Time
1
1
36
36
100
5
100
10
Total
wages
(€)
34,331
2,200
25,000
2,500
No.
Grants
Cost/Grant
(€)
1000
1000
34
2
16
2
Grant authorities: Grade IV (Assistant Staff Officer) deals with the processing
and payments of the grants. Salary p.a. = €34,331.
Grade VI (Senior Staff Officer) signs off on the awards –
average 5% of time. Salary p.a. = €43,779
The Cost/Grant is calculated on the 2002 figure of 1000 grants
received at Tipperary N.R. VEC.
Finance Offices : 36 colleges paying one person full time €25,000 on average.
Cost/Grant is calculated by dividing the total cost (see table
below) by the total number of qualified grants.
Registries :
36 colleges paying one person €25,000 annually, of which
10% of time is taken up with grant related tasks. Chores
involve sorting and mailing registration lists to each individual
grant authority along with monitoring registration details
throughout the academic year.
Grant Authorities
Finance offices
(college)
Registries (college)
Total Cost
Cost/Grant
(€)
34
2
16
Total Grants*
2
56,000
52
56,000
56,000
56,000
Total Cost
(€m)
1.9
0.11
0.9
0.09
3
* This figure does not take into account the many application which are
disqualified annually but still involve being worked on at the local authority level.
As a consequence the total cost of €1.9m is underestimated.
Financial
Cost of new process based on wages
Grant Authorities
Registries (college)
Total Cost
No.
Staff
66
66
36
%
Total wages
Time
(€)
30
10,300
5
2,200
5
1,250
Total Cost
(€m)
0.67
0.14
0.045
0.9
Grant authorities : Grade iv (Assistant Staff Officer) deals with the processing
and payments of the grants. Salary p.a. = €34,331
Grade vi (Senior Staff Officer) signs off on the awards –
average 5% of time. Salary p.a. = €43,779. The total cost is
based on the number of grant authorities instead of
the total number of grants as the future number of grants
applications cannot be calculated.
Registries :
36 colleges paying one person €25,000 annually, of which 5%
of time is taken up with grant related tasks.
Note
The administration costs of the current process cannot be calculated as there is
no way of determining the costs relating to grants for each office in terms of
stationery, telephone costs, application forms, accompanying notes printed etc.
The new system aims at significantly reducing these costs and only when in
operation will a notable reduction in expenses and its true value be apparent.
53
APPENDIX VII
Sample Online Application Scenario
Application form
The application form at present has been established to satisfy all scenarios of
personal information that may exist. Many of the sections are redundant to most
individuals but are included to cover the minority. Each individual has specific
sections within the form to complete based on their personal situation.
Examples
An applicant who responds as being an “Independent mature candidate” will not
be required to enter details of their parents/guardians personal information.
A person who is employed will not need to be troubled with details of “Income
from Social Welfare” eliminating a full page of the application form.
Rather than a universal application form, the online solution introduces the
capability to build ones own form containing only relevant information. This will
reduce application forms considerably and when presented to the user in a
friendly efficient sequence will make the application process very simple.
Compact relevant application forms makes accepting/rejecting applications much
more straightforward.
The applicant will be asked a series of questions based on sections of the
application form. Depending on their responses to these specific questions
relevant pages will be presented to them.
Scenario
The majority of applicants are just finishing their leaving certificate, single, and
are dependent on their parents who are employed and who have no income
54
outside of their employment. The following highlight the relevant and irrelevant
sections for such an applicant.
Relevant sections
Personal Information
Personal details of parents
Details of dependent
children
Income from employment
Gross Income from
deposit/investment account
Declaration and
authorisation
Notes
Total
No.
Pages
½
½
Irrelevant sections
No.
Pages
¼
½
½
Personal details of spouse
Previous PLC/3RD level
courses
Details of directorship held
1
½
Income from social welfare
Income from pensions
1
1
1
Income from self
employment, including
farming
Notes
Rent and other income from
land and property
Income from maintenance
arrangements,
separation/divorce
agreements, settlements,
trusts, covenants, estates etc
Disposal of assets & rights
Gifts and inheritance
Income from sources not
shown elsewhere
Total
1
1
5
¼
3
1
¼
¼
¼
¼
9
The hardcopy application form is 14 pages in length. This is only one scenario
but illustrates the reduction is quantity that could be achieved.
55
BIBLIOGRAPHY
CAO (2003) Board of Directors’ Report 2003, Dublin: Stationary Office.
Davenport, T. H. (1993) Process Innovation, Boston MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
Department of Education & Science (1993), Report of the Advisory Committee on
Third-Level Student Support, Dublin: Stationary Office.
Department of Education & Science (2003) Press Release 07 July, 2003 - Noel
Dempsey T.D., Minister for Education and Science Announces Full Details of
Maintenance Grant Schemes for the 2003/2004 Academic Year, 56,000 Students
To Benefit From Improvements in the Schemes, Dublin: Stationary Office.
Department of Education & Science (2003a), Statistical Report 2000/2001,
Dublin: Stationary Office.
Education Ireland (2003),
http://www.educationireland.ie/htm/education/third_education/
third_level_education_system.htm, Last accessed on Jun 3rd 2003.
Klein, M (1994), “Reengineering Methodologies and Tools”, in Sethi and King
(eds.) Organisational transformation through business process reengineering,
London: Prentice Hall. Pages 221-242.
Hammer, M. (1990) "Reengineering Work: Don't Automate, Obliterate", Harvard
Business Review, (July/August) 1990, Pages 104-122.
56