1.12A total of $250 million in PBRF funding was available in 2011 and was allocated as shown in Table 1.1 below.
|External Research Income||Research Degree Completions||Total Funding|
|University of Auckland||$40,525,364||$13,743,207||$19,703,061||$73,971,632|
|University of Otago||$33,636,984||$8,279,778||$10,612,380||$52,529,142|
|University of Canterbury||$15,896,276||$3,011,603||$8,238,228||$27,146,107|
|Victoria University of Wellington||$14,600,714||$2,944,408||$5,548,702||$23,093,824|
|University of Waikato||$9,568,154||$1,820,769||$3,984,663||$15,373,586|
|Auckland University of Technology||$4,108,163||$701,081||$3,228,996||$8,038,240|
|Unitec New Zealand||$2,331,493||$101,043||$683,746||$3,116,282|
|Waikato Institute of Technology||$346,099||$20,173||$211,410||$577,682|
|Manukau Institute of Technology||$496,857||$12,481||-||$509,338|
|Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology||$376,118||$27,271||-||$403,389|
|Te Whare Wānanga o Awanuiārangi||$199,482||$28,936||$47,487||$275,905|
|Eastern Institute of Technology||$159,704||$14,847||$43,500||$218,051|
|Open Polytechnic of New Zealand||$174,787||$3,738||-||$178,525|
|Te Wānanga o Aotearoa||$162,661||-||-||$162,661|
|Whitecliffe College of Arts and Design||$42,883||-||$115,275||$158,158|
|Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology||$85,360||-||-||$85,360|
|Whitireia Community Polytechnic||$63,586||$6,687||-||$70,273|
|Carey Baptist College||$51,756||$97||-||$51,853|
|Bethlehem Institute of Education||$22,181||$6,710||-||$28,891|
|AIS St Helens||$22,181||-||-||$22,181|
|Good Shepherd College||$22,181||-||-||$22,181|
1.13All 27 PBRF-participating TEOs received funding through the Quality Evaluation measure in 2011. A total of $150 million of PRBF funding was allocated between TEOs in 2011 based on 2006 Quality Evaluation scores.
1.14For 2011, 20 providers were eligible to receive their share of $37.5 million in ERI funding, based on a weighted average derived from their 2007-2009 performance.
1.15Also based on performance in 2007–2009, a total of $62.5 million in RDC funding was available for allocation to 15 TEOs in 2011.
1.16Together, New Zealand’s eight universities received 97.32 percent of the final PBRF funding in 2011.
1.17The University of Auckland and the University of Otago again together received slightly more than 50 percent of the total available funding in 2011. There were nevertheless distinct differences in the relative strengths of these two highest performing universities in the PBRF.
1.18Of all participating TEOs, the University of Auckland received the greatest share of the total QE allocation. In terms of its overall PBRF funding, however, it received proportionately less from this measure than the University of Otago: the proportion of total funding made up by the QE component was 64.03 percent for the University of Otago, and 54.79 percent for the University of Auckland.
1.19Conversely, the University of Auckland generated significantly higher proportions of funding from the two other components: RDC and ERI funding respectively made up 26.64 and 18.58 percent of its total allocation, while these same measures accounted for 20.20 and 15.76 percent of the University of Otago’s overall PBRF funding.
1.20In 2011, the ITP sub-sector received 2.36 percent of the total PBRF funding. As in 2010, the performance-based distribution of this $5.90 million was highly variable.
1.21Unitec alone received 52.84 percent of the entire PBRF funds allocated to the ITP sub-sector – a total of $3.12 million and an increase of 6.84 percent compared with 2010. Unitec’s ERI allocation however dropped by 34.57 percent compared with 2010. Otago Polytechnic had the second highest total PBRF allocation of the ITPs with $678,916.
1.22While the QE accounted for the majority of each ITP’s total PBRF allocation, the proportion of individual providers’ funding made up of this measure ranged widely, from 59.91 percent at Waikato Institute of Technology to 100 percent at Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology.
1.23The highest individual proportions of ERI funding were generated by the otherwise lowest performing providers in the PBRF within the ITP sub-sector: funding from this component accounted for 9.52 percent of Whitireia’s total allocation and for 8.66 percent of Northland Polytechnic’s, compared with 3.24 percent of Unitec’s.
1.24However, each provider’s proportion of ERI funding is not only a function of its performance against this measure, but also against the QE measure and (where applicable) the RDC measure. Whitireia and Northland Polytechnic, for example, did not produce any RDCs or receive any RDC funding, and in dollar terms they received relatively small amounts of ERI compared to higher performing providers. Allocations for RDCs were paid to four of the 10 PBRF-eligible ITPs, and in each case this measure was a significant source of revenue: RDC funding accounted for 36.60 percent of Waikato Institute of Technology’s total PBRF allocation and contributed over a fifth of Otago Polytechnic’s total allocation. RDC funding was sizeable for Unitec too, with its 21.94 percent share netting this provider $683,746.
1.25The wānanga and PTE sub-sectors respectively received 0.18 and 0.14 percent of the total PBRF fund in 2011.
1.26For almost all TEOs in 2011, the largest proportion of their final PBRF funding came from the QE measure. One exception to this rule was Whitecliffe College whose QE allocation made up 27.11 percent of its total funding, with the remaining 72.89 percent derived from its RDCs. Also an exception, Laidlaw College received similar proportions of funding from the QE and RDC components (42.40 percent and 57.61 percent, respectively).
1.27Of the two participating wānanga, Te Whare Wānanga o Awanuiārangi produced the strongest performance, attracting funding from all three measures to make up its total $275,905 (of which 72.30 percent was from QE; 10.49 percent was from ERI; 17.21 percent was from RDC). Conversely, Te Wānanga o Aotearoa’s lesser PBRF funding was derived entirely from the institution’s 2006-based performance in the QE.
1.28Three of the seven participating PTEs also received 100 percent of their funding from the QE component. Two other providers in this sub-sector – Laidlaw College and Whitecliffe College – were the only ones to receive RDC funding, for whom, as previously noted, it represented a sizeable proportion of their total allocation.
1.29ERI was only allocated to two PTEs – Carey Baptist College, where this measure made up less than two percent of total funding, and Bethlehem Institute of Education where it accounted for 23.23 percent of the provider’s total funding.