Appendix F: CSSF Funding Proposal
body generally. These responses were significantly more
decisive than any other service offered through the levy. In
addition, a number of comments highlighted long wait
times, underfunded counselling services that do not meet
demand from students, and the need for greater support for
students suffering with mental health illnesses.
The second clear response was that chapel and prayer
services should be prioritised less. 47% of recipients
considered they should be prioritised less, and another 47%
Student Services Levy Report and Proposals
considered they should be prioritised about the same.
Further, while 7% of recipients considered these spaces to
This report summarises the results from the Student
be important to them personally, but a small majority
Services Levy survey, and AUSA’s recommendations for the
thought they were important for the wider student body. It
setting and allocation of the Compulsory Student Services
is important to note that this survey is not necessarily
Fee in 2018. In making these recommendations we have
representative of the wider student body: chapel and prayer
drawn on the responses from the 1003 students who filled
services are important for many students who may not have
out the survey jointly run by the University of Auckland and
filled out this survey. Additionally, chapel and prayer
AUSA.
services is one of the services funded the least under the
CSSF, at $157,000.
Survey Results
The third consistent response was the need to rationalise
The survey was divided into three main questions. How
the distribution of funding between faculties. In the
important services were to students personally, to the
comments section of the survey, a large number of students
student community, and whether some services should be
were concerned about the fairness of faculty funding,
prioritised more, less, or about the same.
particularly from CAI, Science, and Arts.
There were four particularly clear and consistent results
The fourth common response was the need for more
from the survey. First, that Health and Counselling was
student study spaces, and the protection of libraries and
important and should be prioritised more. 70% of
specialist resources.
respondents thought Health and Counselling should be
These four clear responses were the most decisive.
prioritised more, 73% thought it was important to them
However, in addition to these, students wanted to see a
personally, and 47% considered it important to the student
greater prioritisation of:
services, as many students still report long wait
● Sport and recreation (34%);
times.
● CDES (30%);
● Advocacy (27%);
● Focusing on developing resources and staffing
● Pastoral care (26%); and
capacity who focus on prevention, to help students
● Clubs (25%).
before problems manifest themselves more
seriously. For example, the expansion and better
The only service where a majority of students wanted a
promotion of initial and group counselling sessions
lower prioritisation was for Chapel and Prayer services
that students can access before seeing a clinical
(47%).
psychologist.
Proposals
b) Increase funding for AUSA welfare services
a) Prioritise and make improvements to University
In addition to health and counselling services, students
Health and Counselling
considered pastoral care and advocacy as areas that are
important and could be better prioritised. In response to
The clearest priority from the survey was improving health
this, we propose a $40,000 increase in funding AUSA’s
and counselling. This trend has been seen over a number of
welfare support services.
years, with students consistently rating this as the highest
priority service funded under the levy. In light of this, we
AUSA’s welfare services provide important pastoral and
suggest:
economic support to students in need. These services
include providing food bags, hardship grants, textbook
● Freeing up resources within Health and Counselling
grants, dental grants, as well as special spaces and support
by:
people for marginalised and minority groups on campus.
○ allowing some aegrotat and compassionate
However, demand has been outstripping supply for these
consideration processes to be dealt with
services. For example, in the last six years, the number of
through faculties;
hardship grants awarded has increased by 200%. All our
○ reducing the current number of ‘no show’
services are student-run, but increases in student demand
appointments.
is stretching our capacity to provide and grow these
services as student volunteers and executive members who
● Better meeting demand for health and counselling
change office every year.
services. Particularly, we are concerned about low to
medium priority students’ accessibility to these
Better funding for our welfare services directly responds to
University, and issues students have with their courses or
a number of needs highlighted by the Student Services Levy
programmes. It is run by two student leaders who work
survey. With this money, we will:
part-time, and our long-serving Advocacy Manager, Denise
Lazelle. Over the last few years, demand has markedly
● Grow the number and quality of welfare services on
increased for this service - which is mainly run by
offer to students.
volunteers. The number of cases heard by the 18-person
● Focus more on running events and initiatives to help
office in semester one was up 35% from what it heard over
and raise awareness of mental health such as the
the same period in 2016. Greater funding will assist the
Wellness Week that will be running for the first time
Advocacy Office to continue increasing, and better support
in week 7;
its volunteers.
● Free up resources to be able to hire a staff member
from our budget-line who will focus on welfare. Their
Second, we would like to increase funding into our Class
role will have an administrative and events focus.
Representatives system. The quality and scale of the class
This will enable the grants schemes to be processed
representative system is growing. This year, AUSA worked
more efficiently and with more consistency from year
with the University to make changes to the Class
to year;
Representation Policy and Guidelines. We have increased
● Better support the student leaders currently running
the numbers and quality of our trainings, created new
welfare, and allow them to focus more on growing
resources for class reps, and are better supporting class
welfare programs, and supporting and engaging
reps when they have complaints or issues with their classes.
students than completing burdensome administrative
However, we see there is still room for growth. We would
tasks.
like to increase the hours of our class representation
coordinator, and allow them to spend more time in the
c) Increase funding for AUSA Advocacy
education policy space supporting the Education Vice-
President, and class reps facing challenges in their class.
72% of students considered that student advocacy was
This is important, but only possible through additional
important to the student body, and it was ranked fourth as
funding.
the service that needed to be better prioritised.
Together, we are proposing a $30,000 increase for
We are proposing to fund two extra streams within AUSA’s
advocacy funding. This will be split evenly between AUSA
Advocacy branch. First, we want to put an additional
Advocacy and Class Reps.
$15,000 into AUSA Advocacy. AUSA Advocacy provides free,
confidential support and advice to students on issues
ranging from tenancy disputes, disciplinary actions from the
d) Increase the number of student study spaces
funding received by CAI was highlighted by students who
on campus
were concerned about the higher levels of funding received
by similarly sized faculties such as law.
Although the provision of study spaces is not decided by the
allocation of CSSF money, a common issue raised by
We ask for a review and full break down in the division of
students was the importance of student study spaces and
faculty funding. This information is not well publicised, and
libraries. Many students thought Libraries and Learning
it is not clear how decisions are made, and why faculty
Services should be better funded to provide this, that more
funding is distributed the way that it is. Faculty funding
study spaces should be created, and unsurprisingly, that the
should be allocated fairly, based on the number of students
CAI libraries should not be closed.
and need rather than historical funding decisions.
We suggest that the University prioritises providing study
f) Rationalise the funding for chapel and prayer
spaces to students, especially those whose libraries have
services
recently closed.
The least supported service in the survey was expenditure
In particular, we ask that:
on chapel and prayer services, with 47% of respondents
favouring a lower priorisation. In light of this, we ask for a
● Students are involved and have a voice in the
rationalisation and breakdown of how this money is spent.
reconfiguration of the General Libraries;
● In the short term, old library spaces are turned into
However, AUSA is not proposing to reduce the proportion of
student study spaces;
the levy spent on chapel and prayer services. These results
● In the long term:
have to be viewed within their context. Chapel and prayer
○ the Gateway building includes spaces for
services are a key component of pastoral care, which was
students to study;
considered by students as one of the most important
○ the University partners with AUSA to develop
services offered via the levy. Further, this survey is not fully
a strategy for the future of student spaces on
representative. Chapel and prayer services are well used,
campus.
and are important for a large number of students,
particularly international students and minority groups. The
e) Assess and rationalise the balance of funding
University also has statutory obligations to provide spaces
from the CSSF between faculties
for some religious practices. Finally, Chapel and Prayer
services currently have some of the lowest proportion of
A common issue raised in the report was the imbalance of
funding under the levy, with only $157,000 allocated
funding between faculties. In particular, the low level of
towards maintaining them.
