Ministerial Committee for the Review of Student Housing at South African Universities: Report

Higher Education, Science and Innovation

06 March 2013
Chairperson: Ms N Gina (ANC) (Acting)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Minister of Higher Education and Training appointed a ministerial committee to investigate student accommodation after he took up office in 2009 and visited a number of universities. The visits confirmed there were serious challenges in the provision of both on- and off-campus accommodation. The Minister appointed Professor Iron Rensburg, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Johannesburg, to lead the committee.

The purpose of the committee was to establish the scale of the student accommodation challenges. The committee was briefed that the research methodology involved comprehensive questionnaires that were constructed and distributed to Vice Chancellors of the 22 contact universities. Site visits covering on- and off-campus accommodation across 49 university campuses was done. South Africa had no national legislation or by-laws pertaining to the accommodation and housing of students. It was noted that the majority of students staying in residence were African females and the largest number of students in residence originated from KwaZulu Natal, Eastern Cape and the SADC region respectively. The Committee was shown disturbing photos of residences in Limpopo and at Fort Hare.

The question of hunger was very much prevalent across all universities. Stakeholder involvement in alleviating hunger was urgently needed. The private sector provided for 10 percent of the estimated full time contact enrolment at universities in 2010. Given the dire shortage of suitable student accommodation, public-private partnership in the form of student villages, particularly in the metropolitan areas, should be explored.

The Department of Higher Education and Training pointed out that over R6 billion had been made available for university infrastructure over three years across a number of categories. Different financing options had been explored and that it was the Department’s intention to Gazette the Minimum Norms and Standards for the sector.

Members were very concerned about those students affected by hunger, and asked for more details on the maladministration of the National Students Financial Aid Scheme and the photographs presented to the Committee. They asked about public-private partnerships and how the private sector could controbute more. Concerns were raised about the transparancy of contracts and the potential for corruption in infrastructure development.

Meeting report

Briefing by Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET)
Mr Shai Makgopa, Chief Director: University Financial Planning and Information Systems, DHET, gave a brief historical background of the ministerial committee. Between 2005 and 2010, universities reported a total of 39 incidents of student housing-related protests with most of the protests being witnessed at historically black institutions. The purpose of the Report included assisting government to produce a medium- to long-term financing framework within a fifteen year time frame, in order to intervene in this situation. It was also necessary for the provision of minimum norms and standards for student accommodation, whether on or off campus.

Dr Iain L’Ange, Executive Director of Infrastructure Operations and Finance at Rhodes University, was the ministerial committee’s lead researcher. The research methodology had included: a review of related literature, site visits, interviewing stakeholders, data compilation, review and analysis. The bulk of the research was done in North America, Europe and Australia. There was a paucity of student housing research in developing countries. Most students lived at home but demand for student housing outstripped supply. Student housing models ranged from traditional university residences to public-private partnerships (PPPs), city-university partnerships and the re-use of old buildings. More African students stayed on residence and the race with the least number was Asian and Indian. Only five percent of first year students at South African universities housed in residence and this was a worrying concern.  The Committee was shown photographs that were taken during the site visits. Comparisons were done between historically advantaged universities and those historically disadvantaged. The photographs showed University of Venda, University of Fort Hare and University of Limpopo residences to be in a poor state.

The issue of student hunger remained a crucial element that needed to be addressed. The committee signaled a strong statement in the Report: “no student interviewed during the site visits admitted to being hungry, but several recounted stories about fellow students starving, stories which were confirmed by student leaders and student support staff. Given the stigma of poverty, the committee is of the view that these stories are merely the tip of the iceberg that is student hunger. It is an indictment on all who live in this country that some of the greatest talents of the next generation, and many of its future leaders, are being suffered to live and learn under such appalling conditions. It is not only the country’s potential being squandered; it is literally being starved. This state of affairs cannot be permitted to continue, and it should be the first and most urgent duty of every stakeholder in higher education to ensure that it does not.”

There was a difficult balance between the need to keep residence fees as low as possible and the need to provide student accommodation which meets the acceptable standards. 71 percent of students housed in residences received some form of financial assistance. The maladministration of the National Schools Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) at a number of universities was the direct cause of much suffering and hardships to students at those institutions. It was noted that residence staff ratios varied between 1:19 and 1:535, with staff remuneration and training varying just as widely. The lack of sufficient and adequate on-campus housing was resulting in overcrowding, jeopardising students’ academic endeavors and creating significant health and safety risks.  Based on university estimates, the value of the current national maintenance and refurbishment backlog was R2.5 billion. If residences were to be fit for purpose this amount was far short.

Conditions of leased buildings could only be described as squalid and private student housing in the country was completely unregulated and lead to exploitation of students. The average residence fee in 2010 was R13 283 and the lowest fees were at Walter Sisulu University which charged R6603. Universities located in impoverished areas had either unsuitable or unavailable off-campus accommodation. It was recommended that the residence admission and allocations policy needed to be comprehensive and rigorously implemented and monitored. Public-private partnerships in the form of student villages, particularly in the metropolitan areas, should be explored further. Strategies and mechanisms needed to be developed to increase and support access to university residences by poor and working class students. Minimum standards for the accommodation and housing of students had to be developed and made applicable to all providers of student housing, both public and private.

It was recommended that all universities should establish a board, council or similar body which represented all residences and oversaw residence life. All complaints and allegations of maladministration, corruption and nepotism had to be thoroughly investigated by the Department of Higher Education and Training and strict action taken against offenders. Residence management accounts should be submitted on a quarterly basis to the university council, and annual financial reporting had to be standardised. A wealth tax mechanism could be explored as a way of increasing residence access to disadvantaged students. Residence had to become an integral part of the academic project and promoted as sites of academic endeavor. An annual national NSFAS residence fee for student board and lodging which met minimum standards should be set at R30 500 for 2011. All universities were to conduct a professional quantity surveyor-led assessment of their residence infrastructure. National minimum standards and service level agreement guidelines for the maintenance and refurbishment of residence infrastructure should be established. Those responsible for student housing at the university should report directly to a member of the senior management team of the university.

Brenda Swart, the Director of University Financial and Physical Planning at the Department of Higher Education and Training, said that funding was available for university infrastructure to the amount of R6 billion over three years. Historically disadvantaged institutions received the bulk (85 percent) of the R1 690 billion meant for student housing. The government had to provide funding for infrastructure to ensure that residency fees remained affordable to poor middle class students. The Department hosted a workshop with all universities and a departmental project management unit and building capacity within the Department was established. Priority infrastructure projects included student housing, information technology, historically disadvantaged institutions’ backlog, disability funding for increased infrastructure and cooperative projects. Walter Sisulu University received the highest allocation with over R421, 851 million and the University of Pretoria and UNISA receiving the least with R88 million and R87 million respectively. 

Discussion
The Acting Chairperson noted that the discussion was very important because it spoke to the question of university access.

Mr G Radebe (ANC) requested a list of the universities that had been involved in the maladministration of NSFAS. He asked about the infrastructure development at Mpumalanga University and wanted to know how the Department was prioritising the development of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) infrastructure.

Mr B Bhanga (COPE) asked about the difficulty of information gathering and how research of student accommodation could be developed in South Africa. The question of how the private sector could contribute to financing residences was also raised. The issue of hygiene at universities should not be left to residences only. Mr Bhanga was disturbed by the conditions at university residences. The Minister, Blade Nzimande, was supposed to present the Report as it was political in nature and his absence was worrying.

Mr C Moni (ANC) asked if there were oversight visits to student teacher colleges. What was the contribution of universities to the infrastructure development? He asked about the figures needed to alleviate the problems of university residences and bemoaned the privatisation of accommodation. He pointed out the dangers of students cooking in residence.

Mr L Bosman (DA) said that the dining hall issue needed to be rectified and also pointed out that the question of first year residence was crucial if the high university through-put rate was to be reduced.

Mr S Mayathula (ANC) asked why the recommendation for university residence fees was set at an amount of R30 500. He said a standard figure for accommodation was needed for all students across all universities as the amounts should be given according to the number of poor students at a university.

Mr A Mpontshane (IFP) said that the findings in the Report would need an urgent response from the Department. Hunger was an issue that needed to be dealt with urgently as it was both an academic and social ill. The question of wide gaps in staff remuneration needed to be looked into by the Department. The potential for corruption in infrastructure development was raised.

Ms S Sibiya (ANC) asked about management responsibility in training.

Ms D Chilli (ANC) expressed sadness on the issue of student hunger and also the question of financial aid. The suffering of students needed to be alleviated.

The Committee asked for more information about the PPP and the transparency of some of the contracts.

The Department responded that the rescheduling of matters by the Committee had resulted in the Minister not attending the meeting.

It was explained that NSFAS transferred funds to the institutions and it was the universities that were not giving funds to students. The Department wanted the process speeded up and the utilisation of funds was being monitored. NSFAS had made a presentation on how it would distribute funds. The issue of training and development was crucial. The norms and standards had been developed and would be out by April for public comment. The comments made by the Members of parliament were included in the norms and standards. It was a comprehensive contribution involving all the stakeholders in higher education. Some of the institutions could not make contributions, in particular those that were previously disadvantaged. The role of government was to assist these institutions.

The priorities were not presented in any particular order. Some institutions had not requested funding. ICT and disability funding for infrastructure would be given to all universities. The findings were only for universities but site visits were done to teacher training institutions. It was suggested that this was a political issue because intervention was needed and the burden was not only on fiscus but also all stakeholders. Different universities had different priorities but the academic aspect of life in residence was very important. 

The backlog of R6 billion was for all the priorities highlighted in the Report. Some universities were in a position to provide more than the government was able to provide. The living environment in residence in universities had to provide a good space for learning and leisure. The Department did not give the names of the universities implicated in maladministration of NSFAS on the basis that the purpose of the Report was not to name and shame various institutions but to build constructive solutions from the recommendations. Guidelines were available for institutions to follow when developing PPP agreements. 

Dr L’ Ange said that they did battle to gain information on student accommodation and some of the data was unreliable. The issue of rubbish was an institutional problem but it impacted on residences. The privatisation of residences needed to be looked into. A well-resourced facility combined with two balanced meals a day was taken into account when coming up with R30 500 figure.

The Acting Chairperson responded that the Department needed to name the universities involved in maladministration of funds as the Committee was accountable to public. She asked the Department to respond to other questions raised by the Committee after the meeting.

The meeting was adjourned.

Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: