(This casual connection between means-testing and anomalies is more than evident in the experience of the Supplementary Hardship Grant (SHG) in 1980.)

Causes of SHG Anomalies

Last year Waikato University conducted research into the operation of the SHG at that University. The study concluded that there were three main causes of anomalous decisions. The first was simply straight-forward administrative or secretarial mistakes. For example, the applicant's budget may have been added up incorrectly.

Secondly sometimes specific criteria was misapplied. For example, income from A or B Bursaries could have been taken into account when assessing eligibility for SHG assistance; it is not supposed to have been taken into account. This could be attributable to the massive saturation of SHG applications.

Finally there were cases of inconsistent application of general criteria in cases where the assessor was required to exercise judgement. An example of this situation is in the case of whether a student who had used vacation earnings to repay loans taken out in the previous year should be "penalised" for having made insufficient effort to save for the current academic year.

Secret Criteria

A major difficulty faced by student applicants and university bursary administrators is that the criteria used by the Department of Education for assessing hardship applicants is secret to the Department. The Waikato study actually worked out what the criteria were in 1980, but there is no guarantee that it will be the same in 1981. The Waikato study produced an amazing revelation about one of the consequences of using secret criteria for a means-testing system. It observed that: "...less than half of the 'anomalous' decisions were challenged mainly because the students concerned had insufficient knowledge of the basis on which the original assessments were made." (emphasis added).

Variations in Hardship Amounts

The most common complaint about hardship anomalies involved many cases in which students in similar circumstances got quite different grants. NZUSA suspected for a long time that the Department of Education worked on the basis that there was a fixed budget for its hardship expenditure and adjusted its allocations throught the year accordingly. That is, the Department amended its criteria. These suspicions were reinforced by figures on hardship awards announced in Parliament, on 8 August 1980, by the then Acting Minister of Education David Thompson.

Tables Two and Three provide some insight into this trend by looking at percentage weightings.

Given the trend of smaller awards as the year progressed it is not surprising that the major complaint about the SHG, apart from the delays and associated uncertainties, has been the number of anomalies. Amending the application of criteria simply in order to spend less can only create anomalies; they cannot be avoided.

Anomalies of Parental Testing

If you are under 20 years, you may have less chance of getting any SHG. Not only are your own financial circumstances assessed, but also those of your parents, as they are expected to contribute to your upkeep. While some parents may not mind supporting their adult "children", what about students whose parents can't or won't do so? Perhaps they already have too many financial obligations, or, for any number of reasons, are unable or unwilling to help.

The Department of Education says that it takes such factors into consideration, but why then are students whose parents refuse to sign the form being denied any grant at all, and why are solo parents and those on Social Welfare benefits being asked to provide more money? One student was even advised he should move out of his mother's house where he was helping her by paying rent, so she could get a more lucrative boarder, and so assist her son.

Catch 22 - Vacation Earnings

Under the present scheme, the more money you have saved, the less money you are likely to get during the academic year. On the other hand, if you were unable to get a job, you may be told you should have (never mind the fact that the country is facing its highest level of unemployment since the Depression) and so still get nothing. Furthermore the Department of Education expects applicants who had difficulties getting a job over the long vacation to provide documentary evidence of prompt registration with the Department of Labour. However, the Department of Labour refuses to supply this evidence.

Some groups are particularly disadvantaged by the Department's policy on savings. One example is students who have Farm Ownership Accounts or similar investments. Although the whole object of such long term investments is to be able to set aside money which cannot be touched, the Department expects such students to live off these savings, and so jeopardise their future plans, and even their reason for being at university. Likewise, students whose parents have set up trusts for their education are being told to break in to the capital investment.

Interviewing Difficulties

Students commented, in 1980, that they found the questions asked on the forms and at the interview humiliating and an invasion of privacy, and for these reasons, some were not willing to apply for a SHG. The different approaches of various interviewers didn't help. While most students seem to have found their interviewer very sympathetic, a few have commented that their interviewer took the view that students were bludgers, and did his/her best to whittle down students' expenditure figures.

Who's to Blame

While so many anomlaies have occurred in the administration of the bursary scheme, it would be wrong to place the major blame for this on to the Department of Education, although its failure to formulate an efficient and reliable means of processing applications certainly hasn't helped. Instead, it is the Government and its financial wizards who dreamed up this unworkable scheme, and who persisted in implementing it despite all advice to the contrary, who deserve the blame.

Although no bursary system administered on such a large scale can be expected to be completely anomoly free, widespread means-testing, such as the present schemes involves, encourages anomolies and dishonesty, while at the same time costs a great deal more to administer than a scheme which ensures a reasonable basic level for all students, and where hardship grants are only required for a minority of students.

What Should You Do?

You or your friends may have been a victim of the sorts of anomolies outlined above. If so, NZUSA would like to hear from you, as we need much more information on how the scheme is affecting students. Send us a letter c/- Education & Welfare Vice President, NZUSA, PO Box 9047, Wellington, giving us as much information and documentation as you can. Your identity will be kept confidential if you wish, although the more students willing to go public the better. And while you are waiting for us to sort out the hassle why not join in the National Day of Action against the whole scheme on Wednesday 8 April.

Ian Powell

Research Officer, NZUSA