THE BUDGET TRADEOFF MODEL FOR PALESTINIAN TERTIARY EDUCATION

1
THE BUDGET TRADE-OFF MODEL FOR PALESTINIAN
TERTIARY EDUCATION

• Kamal Braham

2
Some milestones

• BTM developed for the WB financial strategy for
  Palestinian HE report (2002)
• Updated and used in 2004 for the preparation of
  the Tertiary Education Project
• Improved to be used by the MOEHE for sub sector
  planning (2005)
• IBTM developed to be used by institutions for
  budget planning (2005)

3
EXPECTED OUTPUTS OF THE MODEL

• Assess TE human and physical resource needs in
  the medium-long range under alternative scenarios
  (admissions enrolments efficiency quality)
• Help identifying the contribution from the
  various sources (students, PNA, Donors) and
  financing mechanisms that would best contribute
  to achieving sub sector objectives
• Assess the sustainability of students financing
  scheme under alternative fee levels and funding
  mechanisms

4
HOW THE MODEL WORKS
Base Sub-Model Admissions Enrollments
Real Resources Sub-model Teaching and
non-teaching staff Teaching and non teaching
facilities
Expenditure Sub-Model Recurrent expenses Capital
expenses Normative costs Fees
Financing Sub-Model Students Financing Student
loans PNA Institutions budget
5
INSTITUTIONS CLASSIFICATION

• Universities ? Public Non Profit (PNP)
• ? Al Quds Open University
• ? PNA Universities (Al Aqsa)
• ? Private Universities (Arab American Univ.)
• Colleges ? PNA Colleges
• ? Non PNA Colleges

6
FIELDS OF STUDIES

• Education
• Humanities
• Social Sciences
• Commerce Economics
• Law
• Information Technology
• Engineering
• Medicine
• Medical Professions
• Science

7
BASE SUB-MODEL

• ASSUMPTIONS
• Tawjihi Graduates
• Admission Rates
• Internal Efficiency

PROJECTIONS OF ENROLMENT

• DATA
• Admissions Enrolment
• Previous years

8
REAL RESOURCES SUB-MODEL

• ASSUMPTIONS
• Students/Staff ratios
• Space/Student ratios

• PROJECTIONS OF
• Staff
• Additional space

• DATA
• Existing Staff
• Existing Buildings
• Projected Enrolments

9
EXPENDITURE SUB-MODEL

• ASSUMPTIONS
• Average salaries
• Non-salary rec costs
• Capital Costs

• PROJECTIONS OF
• Recurrent Costs
• Capital Costs

• DATA
• Projected Staff
• Projected additional space

10
FINANCING SUB-MODEL

• ASSUMPTIONS
• Fees ( of Tot.Cost)
• Scholarships/Loans
• MOEHE contribution

• PROJECTIONS OF
• Institutions Budgets
• MOEHE Budget
• Student Aids
• SRLF

• DATA
• Projected Costs
• Institutions budgets
• MOEHE Budget

11
SCENARIOS

• TREND SCENARIO
• No Students
• Admission Control
• No Quality
• Improvement
• No Financing Strategy

• ADMISSION QUALITY
• CONTROL
• Admission Control
• ?Science/Tech./ Colleges
• ? Education/Hum./Open
• Quality Improvement
• Students/Staff ratios
• Space/Student ratios
• No Financing Strategy

• FINANCING
• STRATEGY
• Fees
• 70 of Tot.Cost in Pr.Fi.
• 100 in other fields
• MOEHE to cover 30
• of cost in Priority Fields
• Specific Funds
• (QIF,CF,RF)
• SRLF 50 repayment
• 1.5 for Adm. Costs

12
MODEL OUTPUTS ENROLMENT (1)
13
MODEL OUTPUTS ENROLMENT (2)
14
MODEL OUTPUTS FINANCIAL BALANCE
15
MODEL OUTPUTSSTUDENTS FUNDINGAverage Fees
16
THE INSTITUTION MODEL

• Same model with institution approach
• Programs/Specialties
• Funding Mechanisms

17
FINAL COMMENTS

• Need for long-medium term planning at the
  sub-sector level
• Need for a financial reporting system to the
  MOEHE
• Need for a criteria-based planning system at
  institution level
• Need for consistent and comprehensive MIS

18

• THANK YOU