3rd Level Maintenance Grants

[belview]

It has been reported this morning that 50% of all students attending 3rd level colleges are in receipt of a maintenance grant from the state.

This is very strange in a country were we have 1.9 million people employed and over 95 Billion in household savings on deposit in Irish Financial Institutions.

It is the case that 50% of all those attending 3rd level are living away from home and really need this grant - I doubt it.

Or is it a case of people who can afford to fund their education costs looking for a hand out from the state.

As a nation we cant afford to continue pouring money into 3 rd level grants , subsidies and inflated salaries for lecturers.

If students and their families had to fully fund 3rd level fees then this is the best way to cut out the current inefficiencies in the system - i.e 12 hours of lectures a week over a 7 month year - great value at 6k a pop !!!!!!!!

 

[Howitzer]

The issue is who makes the decisions regarding eligability. Grants are allocated by individual Local Authoritys. The system is rife with abuse.

One of the original reasons for the removal of College Fees was the abuse of the grants system whereby some individuals could manipulate their income in the preceeding year in order to qualify. Fees were abolised but the system was never reformed.

 

[Galwaygirl]

The issue is who makes the decisions regarding eligability. Grants are allocated by individual Local Authoritys. The system is rife with abuse

In fairness any abuse of the system is done at the form filling stage by clever accounting or non declaration of income. Decisions are made on the basis of the information given which is pretty extensive, hard to see how any abuse could occur within the system.

Also the grant can be from covering registration fee only (1500) right up to a full non adjacent with additional top up (about 6k a year) and it is based on a mix of family income and number of kids in third level; without seeing a full breakdown it is hard to get a proper picture of what the 50% truly represents.

 

[Marietta]

In fairness any abuse of the system is done at the form filling stage by clever accounting or non declaration of income. Decisions are made on the basis of the information given which is pretty extensive, hard to see how any abuse could occur within the system.

Also the grant can be from covering registration fee only (1500) right up to a full non adjacent with additional top up (about 6k a year) and it is based on a mix of family income and number of kids in third level; without seeing a full breakdown it is hard to get a proper picture of what the 50% truly represents.

PAYE workers cannot not abuse the maintenance grant system, it is virtually impossible as P60's, Balancing statement etc have to be produced.

 

[zztop]

Spot on Marietta,millionaires and multi millionaires have applied
and got this grant.If youre a PAYE worker your chances are
slim to none.

 

[Galwaygirl]

Completely agree re the millionaires getting grants, however the grant is awarded based on the facts (accounts) submitted and even if the person making the decision knows that they are awarding a grant to a millionaire they have to follow the very strict guidelines in place.

As for PAYE workers - registration fees are covered (currently) for a family with less than 4 kids and earning up to 51k, this goes up by 4980 where there are 2 children in college -so family income of 56 k. I would have thought a fair few families woud fall into this bracket so would be a fair proportion of the 50%.

(income limits taken from citizens information website)

 

[belview]

What is the position regarding a 2 salary family in the PAYE system both of who are earning 50k. and have 2 children attending college

Is it possible for 1 parent to make a claim for 1 child based on 1 salary only and the other parent to make a claim for the other child.

Is the grant awarding checking system capable of detecting this type of misleading claim.

 

[Howitzer]

Is the grant awarding checking system capable of detecting this type of misleading claim.

Maybe, maybe not, it depends on the LA and the resourcing available.

If your LA is desperately late every year in sending the checks you can bet that they don't have the resourcing to correctly verify every claim.

See my orginal point re centralising the process.

In such an inadequate system it's impossible to tell whether abuse in the LAs is endemic or just systemic.

Can anyone give me a good reason why this function is held by the LAs?

 

[belview]

All politics is local.

So people lobby their local councilors who in turn lobby the local authority.

A centralised system to vet and approve grant applications makes it much more difficult to influence decisions.

 

[zztop]

Income limits decide these grants so local influence can be limited.
Health was taken off the L As in 1970 and given to H Bs.Now they
have staff of 120,000 compared to 30,000 in L As.Taking work away
doesnt really work its the system thats a**ways

 

[Howitzer]

[broken link removed] released. Lots of waffle but does come to the same, blindingly obvious, conclusion regarding allocation of grants.

The reform of financing must also include a reform of the procedures for means testing for students’ maintenance grants. This should be more streamlined and timely, and should be delivered through a single agency.

The introduction of a student contribution should not inhibit participation in higher education from people in low and lower middle-income households. One of the principal barriers for entry to higher education affecting students from lower income groups is their relatively lower levels of school completion and lower levels of attainment in the Leaving Certificate. This highlights the importance of actions to raise levels of attainment at earlier stages of the education cycle and of pursuing accelerated routes to entry for such students. For those students from lower income groups who do achieve the necessary prior levels of attainment, financial constraints (relating to maintenance in addition to existing student charges) can and do affect participation. These financial barriers, which can be significant, are amenable to direct intervention through the student support framework for higher education.

It is therefore proposed that the individual contributions system should be complemented by a reformed grant support system for disadvantaged students.

The State invests considerable public funding in means-tested student grants for approximately 40 per cent of all full-time students. However, the absence of any consideration of assets and wealth in the means test model has limited the scope of the State to target these scarce resources towards those students most in need of support. This has impacted negatively on potential growth of participation in higher education from the large numbers of households at lower middle-income levels for which affordability considerations play a significant role in the choice of entering higher education.

The very considerable inefficiencies in the current arrangements for administering student grants reflect the incremental and sector-based growth of higher education in Ireland, and the current means assessment model does not command public confidence. For these reasons, the means assessment model must be reformed, and the processes relating to higher education grants must become more streamlined and timely, and must be delivered by a single agency. Such reform is essential to supporting equity of access to higher education and to wider social inclusion goals.