1. Presentation to the Portfolio Committee on Higher Education and Training Report on the Ministerial Committee for the Review of Student Housing at South African Universities Department of Higher Education and Training 6 March 2013 Cape Town, Parliament

2. Introduction  Minister 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.  Lack of adequate and affordable student housing forces students to rent sub-standard accommodation off-campus.  Between 2005 and 2010, universities reported a total of 39 incidents of student housing-related protests with most of these protests in historically black institutions.  The Minister appointed Prof Rensburg to lead the Committee to assess the provision of student accommodation in South African universities. 2 Introduction

3.  To establish the scale of the student accommodation challenges.  To offer a well-motivated and justifiable differentiated framework for redressing this student accommodation quandary through establishing a typology of need based on relative access to private sector led provision and historical disadvantage.  To provide government with a medium to long term financing framework within a fifteen year timeframe, in order to intervene in this situation.  To provide minimum norms and standards for student accommodation, whether on or off campus. Purpose of the Report 3

4.  Comprehensive questionnaire constructed and distributed to Vice Chancellors of the 22 contact universities.  Review of related literature.  Site visits covering on and off-campus accommodation across 49 university campuses.  Interviewing key stakeholders.  Data compilation, review and analysis. Research Methodology 4

5.  Bulk of student housing research – North America, Europe and Australia.  Paucity of student housing research in developing countries.  Most students live at home; but demand for student housing outstrips supply.  Public funding of higher education is under increasing pressure.  Student housing models range from traditional university residences to public-private partnerships (PPPs), city-university partnerships and the re-use of old buildings.  Trends emphasize ‘living-learning’ communities, more mixed and flexible housing forms, safety and security, sustainable student housing developments, and greater consideration for the diversity of student housing needs.  No legislation in SA (national, provincial or local) pertaining to the accommodation and/or housing in South Africa Literature Review - Summary of Findings 5

6. Student Data 6

7. 7

8. 8

9. NB: Only 5% of 1 st year students at SA Universities housed in residence Student Data 9

10. Photos - Site Visits 10

11. Photos - Site Visits 11

12. Photos - Site Visits 12

13. Photos of Site Visits 13

14. Off campus accommodation at University of Venda (not part of the study ) 14

15. Included in this cost (p.112 of Report):  Consultants and planning costs (feasibility & due diligence, EIA’s etc.)  All construction costs  All furniture & fittings (student rooms are fully furnished and include soft furnishings and bed linen), heat pumps in place of hot water boilers, motion-control sensors to control lighting in common areas, wireless and fibre-optic network points in each room, six common rooms fitted with flat screen TVs and DSTV, three kitchenettes, six laundry areas fitted with washing machines and tumble driers, six box rooms, biometric access control, electronic fire-monitoring system, rain-water harvesting and on- site water storage to mitigate short period water outages, and landscaping. Three 3-bedroomed wardens’ flats are included. Per Bed Cost Breakdown – R238 602 15

16.  Additional expenses included unusual platforms & foundations due to slope of site and provision for storage & pumping of water due to inadequate/unreliable municipal water supply.  NOT included is the cost of land  R238 602 is thus the actual cost of a greenfields, fully furnished and fitted, turnkey development providing 261 beds in 2010 in a small rural town in the Eastern Cape. Per Bed Cost Breakdown – R238 602 16

17. “No student interviewed during the site visits admitted to being hungry, but several recounted stories about fellow students who were starving, stories which were then 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 that the country’s potential is 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.” (p.52) Site Visit Findings 17

18.  Pervading and recurring motif - the implacable dialectic between the need to keep residence fees as low as possible and the need to provide student housing and accommodation which meets minimum acceptable standards.  The mal-distribution of NSFAS funding for student accommodation at a number of universities is the direct cause of much suffering and hardship to students at those institutions. Many students experience hunger on a daily basis.  71 % of students housed in residences received some form of financial assistance. Analysis of Findings 18

19.  Highest percentage of students housed in residences originated from Kwazulu-Natal, followed by the Eastern Cape, and thirdly from SADC region.  Campuses are evenly split between those with dining halls and those that are self-catering, poor nutrition and student hunger are prevalent at all universities.  Residence staff ratios vary between 1:19 and 1:535, with staff remuneration and training varying just as widely.  The lack of sufficient and adequate on-campus housing is resulting in overcrowding, jeopardising students’ academic endeavours and creating significant health and safety risks. Analysis of Findings 19

20.  Based on university estimates, value of the current national maintenance and refurbishment backlog is R2.5 billion.  If existing residence stock is to be modernised to render the residences ‘fit-for-purpose’, then a further R1.9 billion is required.  In addition to above costs, it is estimated that the current residence bed shortage is approximately 195 815. In these terms, the cost of overcoming this shortage over a period of ten years is estimated at R82.4 billion, or R109.6 billion over fifteen years. (Estimate based on cost of R240 000 per bed; and 50% and 80% targets of student beds on specific campuses, see table 3). Analysis of Findings 20

21.  The private sector is a significant contributor and stakeholder in the provision of accommodation to university students in South Africa, as is the case internationally.  It is estimated that the private sector provided for 10% of the estimated full- time contact enrolment at universities in 2010.  Condition of leased buildings can only be described as squalid. Private student housing in the country is completely unregulated and leads to exploitation of students. Analysis of Findings 21

22. Table 1 − Bed Shortage & Number of Beds Needed Name of Institution Name of Campus No of registered students 2010 (DHET data) Beds per campus 2010 Beds per University 2010 Bed capacity as % of 2010 enrolment Beds needed to reach 50% of 2010 enrolment Beds needed to reach 80% of 2010 enrolment CPUT CPUT CT 21 497 3 048 5 84318.24% 6 951 CPUT Wellington547 CPUT Mowbray203 CPUT Bellville 10 540 2 045 6387 CUT 12 271 728 5.93%5 408 DUT DUT Durban 25 236 1 400 2 61110.35%10 007 DUT Midlands1 211 MUT 10 046 1 270 12.64% 6767 NMMU NMMU SS South 21 782 1 431 2 81112.34% 8 334 NMMU SS North955 NMMU 2 Ave171 NMMU George 994 254 541 RU 7 149 3 503 49.00%72 TUT TUT Pretoria 36 993 4 012 10 16427.48% 8 333 TUT Emalahleni198 TUT Mbombela130 TUT Garankuwa 4 592 1 478 2196 TUT Soshanguve 10 172 4 346 3792 UCT 23 610 5 579 23.63%6 226 UFH UFH Alice 6 205 4 006 5 08948.25% 958 22

23. UFH Buffalo City 4 3431 0831 089 UFS Bloemfontein 19 2893 382 4 43519.19% 6 263 UFS QwaQwa 3 8241 053 2006 UJ AP-Kingsway 45 509 1 111 4 3939.09% 18 498 UJ AP-Bunting 1 350 UJ Doornfontein 1 796 UJ Soweto 2 815136 2116 UKZN Howard 34 066 1 743 6 92420.33%10 109 UKZN Medical 165 UKZN Westville 2 349 UKZN Edgewood 802 UKZN Pietermaritzburg 1 865 UL Turfloop 14 1035 935 42.08% 5347 UL MEDUNSA 3 8792 748 70.84%355 UZ Kwa Dlangeza 14 4974 354 30.03% 7244 UNW Mafikeng 6 5222 233 8 09627.31% 2985 UNW Potchefstroom 23 120 4 826 5 697 UNW Campus 3 1 037 UP 41 7967 650 18.30%13 248 US Stellenbosch 26 418 5 965 6 87426.02%6 335 US Tygerberg 909 UV 10 2802 036 19.81% 6188 UWC 18 0313 656 20.28% 10769 VUT 21 2123 081 15.01%7 525 WITS 29 7414 464 15.01%10 407 WSU Mthatha 21 901 2 776 5 35424.45% 12421 WSU Mthatha Zama 686 WSU Butterworth 1 638 WSU Buffalo City 3 0002541 246 TOTALS 535 433107 598 20.10% SUBTOTALS126 09969 716 TOTAL NUMBER OF BEDS REQUIRED NATIONALLY (OPTION 1) IN 2010195 815 23

24. INSTITUTION No meals Meals included 200820092010 08/09 % increase 09/10 % increase average increase200820092010 UCT R 18 080R 21 027R 25 74216.3%22.4%19.4%R 28 585R 32 728R 38 938 WITS N/P R 22 745 N/P R 37 493 UWC R 17 174R 20 576R 22 39419.8%8.8%14.3%N/P RU R 16 145R 18 060R 19 98011.9%10.6%11.2%R 26 905R 30 093R 33 302 USB R 15 015R 16 973R 18 32713.0%8.0%10.5%R 24 343R 27 873R 30 427 UP R 14 090R 15 907R 17 75412.9%11.6%12.3%R 23 294R 26 037R 29 384 UKZN R 11 283R 12 881R 13 95214.2%8.3%11.2%N/P NMMU R 14 671R 16 010R 13 9369.1%-13.0%-1.9%N/P R 28 341 VUT R 10 969R 12 305R 13 11712.2%6.6%9.4%N/P DUT R 10 581R 11 680R 12 66110.4%8.4%9.4%N/P CPUT R 9 399R 10 847R 12 35515.4%13.9%14.7%R 14 845R 16 303R 23 404 UJ R 8 935R 9 958R 11 86511.4%19.2%15.3%N/P MUT R 9 437R 10 348R 11 6479.7%12.6%11.1%N/P UFS R 9 453R 9 889R 10 8604.6%9.8%7.2%N/P UFH R 6 863R 7 970R 9 60716.1%20.5%18.3%N/P TUT R 7 711R 8 491R 9 03710.1%6.4%8.3%R 19 555R 24 201R 26 106 NWU R 9 109R 8 068R 8 989-11.4%11.4%0.0%R 16 405N/P UV N/P R 8 430 N/P CUT R 6 758R 7 350R 8 0548.8%9.6%9.2%N/P UL R 6 420R 6 932R 7 4848.0% N/P UZ R 6 136 R 6 6880.0%9.0%4.5%N/P WSU N/P R 6 603 N/P Average R 10 959R 12 179R 13 28310.1% R 21 990R 26 206R 30 924 Table 2 − Weighted Average Residence Fee, 2008-2010 24

25. INSTITUTION200820092010TOTAL UPR53 341 000R53 236 000R61 449 000R168 026 000 UCTR2 709 000R6 645 000R50 322 000R59 676 000 NWUR13 794 000R19 157 000R19 176 000R52 127 000 UVR14 216 000R11 432 000R11 895 000R37 543 000 WITSR14 296 000R4 826 000R6 655 000R25 777 000 USBR12 565 588R12 337 470R475 569R25 378 627 ULR20 759 000R3 294 000Not providedR24 053 000 TUTR2 899 000R9 196 000R8 152 000R20 247 000 VUTR2 474 193R4 761 442R7 400 069R14 635 704 NMMUR871 322-R3 761 991R11 246 750R8 356 081 UZ-R2 328 000-R216 000R4 980 000R2 436 000 RU-R1 000R651 000R 0R650 000 CUTR50 000-R229 000R46 000-R133 000 UKZNR7 294 000-R3 687 000-R8 231 000-R4 624 000 UFS-R5 168 000-R2 166Not provided-R5 170 166 DUT-R1 090 000-R426 000-R8 263 000-R9 779 000 UJ-R1 408 000-R11 944 000R2 200 000-R11 152 000 UFH-R4 339 886-R7 997 293-R6 029 685-R18 366 864 UWC-R6 293 938-R9 841 722-R11 645 780-R27 781 440 MUT-R23 548 000-R8 663 000Not provided-R32 211 000 CPUT-R20 739 004-R23 238 083-R34 118 074-R78 095 161 NET TOTALR80 353 275R55 529 657R115 709 849R251 592 781 AVERAGER3 826 346R2 644 269R6 428 325R11 980 609 WSUNot provided Table 3 − Net Surplus/Deficit for Residence System 2008-2010 25

26.  Type 1 campuses are those where off-campus accommodation is unsuitable and/or unavailable (e.g. UL Turfloop, UV, UWC, UFH Alice). Located in impoverished areas with a severe shortage of suitable accommodation; such campuses ideally need to be able to accommodate 80% of total student enrolment in on-campus accommodation in the short to medium timeframe, and 100% in the long term.  Type 2 campuses are those where limited off-campus accommodation is available and is suitable (e.g. RU, USB). Such campuses ideally should be able to accommodate a minimum of 50% of total student enrolment in on-campus accommodation. Recommendations 26

27.  Type 3 campuses are those where limited off-campus accommodation is available and is suitable, and where land for on-campus accommodation is restricted (e.g. UJ, Wits, UCT). On these campuses, ideally, PPP student accommodation villages, involving partnership between universities, metropolitan councils and private providers, should be encouraged and supported in the short to medium term. Recommendations 27

28. 1.Residence admission and allocations policies:  Comprehensive policy to be rigorously implemented managed and monitored.  Strategies and mechanisms need to be developed to increase and support access to university residences by poor and working class students.  Strategies and mechanisms to allow all new first year contact students in need of accommodation to be allocated to a residence for their first year. 2.Minimum standards for student housing and accommodation:  Minimum standards for the accommodation and housing of students must be developed and made applicable to all providers of student housing, both public and private. Recommendations 28

29. 3.Private student housing and accommodation:  Given the dire shortage of suitable student accommodation, public-private partnerships in the form of student villages, particularly in the metropolitan areas, should be explored further.  Mechanisms designed to foster and enhance cooperation between all stakeholders involved in the provision of student housing and accommodation need to be established, under the auspices of the DHET. 4.Residence management and administration:  Residence staff to resident student ratios should not normally exceed 1:150 in the case of wardens, house parents, residence managers or the equivalent, and 1:100 in the case of student sub-wardens or the equivalent. Recommendations 29

30.  All universities should establish a board, council or similar body which represents all residences and oversees residence life.  Improving the professionalism, compensation and training of university housing staff is an urgent priority.  All complaints and allegations of maladministration, corruption and nepotism must be rigorously investigated by the DHET and strict action taken against offenders. 5.Role of residences in the academic project  Research needs to be conducted to explore ways in which the social and cultural milieu in residence systems impacts upon the ability of black working class students to succeed academically. Recommendations 30

31.  Research needs to be conducted to explore the broad and complex relationship between student housing and academic success.  Residences must become an integral part of the academic project and promoted as sites of academic endeavour. 6.Financing of student housing and funding of student accommodation  The complete separation of the residence budget and management accounts from the university budget and management accounts is needed.  Residence management accounts should be submitted on a quarterly basis to the University Council, and annual financial reporting must be standardised. Recommendations 31

32.  A ‘wealth tax’ mechanism should be explored as a way of increasing residence access to disadvantaged students.  An investigation into universities’ use of reserves for priorities such as student housing should be undertaken.  An annual fixed national NSFAS residence fee for student board and lodging which meets minimum standards (including a minimum of two balanced meals per day) should be set at R30 500 for 2011.  Residences must become an integral part of the academic project and promoted as sites of academic endeavour.  Once the state has indicated what proportion of this target it is able to fund, the private sector should be invited to meet the remaining bed capacity target, in accord with minimum standards for the provision of student housing. Recommendations 32

33.  Residence bed capacities to accommodate 80% of full time contact student enrolment on campuses where off-campus accommodation is unsuitable and/or unavailable, and 50% of full time contact student enrolment on campuses where limited off-campus accommodation is available and is suitable, should be targeted. 7.Condition of residence infrastructure  All universities are 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. Recommendations 33

34.  Modular residence construction methodologies should be fully researched. 8.Future planning  All universities should develop a multi-year strategic plan (including a financial plan) for residence maintenance and refurbishment.  Those who are accountable for university student housing should be part of the planning process. The Chief Housing Officer should report directly to a member of the senior management team of the university. Recommendations 34

35.  Funding available for university infrastructure over 3 years amounts to R6 billion across a number of categories.  Student housing allocation is R1.690 billion.  Historically disadvantaged institutions/campuses allocation is R1.443 billion (85%)  Historically advantaged institutions allocation is R247.3 million (15%).  Approach is to provide funding for new residences and for refurbishments of old residences.  Low residency fees by Category A universities limits their ability to access private funding.  Government has to provide funding for infrastructure to ensure that residency fees remain affordable to poor and middle class students. DHET’s Response to the Report 35

36. The DHET has engaged with the PIC/DBSA to offer preferential rates and viable options to universities:  Category A: Universities with limited on and off campus accommodation and a relatively weak balance sheet (off balance sheet lending).  Category B: Universities with limited on and off campus accommodation and a better balance sheet but pose low risk for funders (can cede part of their investments).  Category C: Universities with a good balance sheet and can access funding at preferential rates (in some cases they cede their investment as security). DHET’s Response to the Report 36

37.  The Department hosted a workshop with all universities on 17 August 2012.  Recommendations were presented and different options around financing explored (PIC, DBSA and ABSA).  Universities invited to present their comments on or before 21 September 2012.  Intention is to Gazette the Minimum Norms and Standards for the sector.  Establishment of a departmental project management Unit and building capacity within DHET.  Compel universities to make provision for maintenance on an ongoing basis for infrastructure.  Systematic mapping of the system. DHET’s Response to the Report 37

38.  Student Housing  Historically Disadvantaged Institutions’ backlogs  Disability funding for increased access  Engineering  Cooperative projects  Health Sciences  Life and Physical Sciences  Well Founded Laboratories  Teacher Education  African Languages, Humanities and Social Sciences  ICT  Project management at universities Priority Infrastructure Categories/Projects 38

39. Total Allocation per University University2012/13 – 2014/15 R'000 CPUT238 847 UCT174 316 CUT255 950 DUT361 525 UFH377 268 UFS208 394 UJ110 155 UKZN244 019 LIMPOPO370 170 MUT228 988 NMMU195 515 NWU211 373 UP88 130 RU169 626 UNISA87 130 SU158 080 TUT379 452 VUT295 635 VENDA305 279 WSU421 851 UWC187 138 WITS155 672 ZULULAND376 278 Total Allocation5 600 791 M&E Internal5 000 ICT184 209 * (to be adjusted) Medunsa210 000 Grand Total over 3 years 6 000 000 39

40. Student Housing Allocations - Per University UniversityFC7A Student Housing in HDI universities Final DHET AllocationUniversity Contribution Priority projects total cost R'000 Cape Peninsula University of Technology 50 375 26 125 76 500 Central University of Technology (Welkom) 60 389 13 044 73 433 Durban University of Technology 115 439 5 604 121 043 University of Fort Hare 120 000 17 825 137 825 University of the Free State ( QwaQwa) 45 189 22 000 67 189 University of Johannesburg (Soweto) 50 000 27 900 77 900 University of KwaZulu-Natal (Westville) 80 000 33 191 113 191 University of Limpopo 180 000 33 173 213 173 Mangosuthu University of Technology 84 936 11 161 96 097 North West University (Mafikeng) 67 000 10 000 77 000 Tshwane University of Technology (Garankuwa) 118 082 13 120 131 202 Vaal University of Technology ( Sebokeng) 48 811 6 535 55 346 University of Venda 132 994 14 777 147 771 Walter Sisulu University 120 123 0 University of the Western Cape 20 000 0 University of Zululand 119 300 16 000 135 300 Total 1 412 638 250 455 1 663 093 40

41. Student Housing Allocations - continued UniversityFC7B Student Housing in non- HDI universities Final DHET AllocationUniversity Contribution Priority projects total cost R'000 University of Cape Town 21 000 223 600 244 600 Central University of Technology (Bloemfontein) 30 100 13 644 43 744 University of the Free State (Bloemfontein) 10 000 42 500 52 500 Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University 20 500 7 036 27 536 North West University (Vaal) 7 545 0 University of Pretoria (allocation made from NSF) 0 27 391 Rhodes University 30 946 5 883 36 829 Stellenbosch University 29 750 57 750 87 500 Tshwane University of Technology (Pretoria West) 16 082 1 800 17 882 Vaal University of Technology (Vanderbijl) 68 213 9 802 78 015 University of the Witwatersrand 5 000 32 000 37 000 Total 239 136 421 406 660 542 41

42. Thank You