NZの国立大学の資金配分システム事例
SACとPBRFについて1

2012年10月

PERFORMANCE LINKED FUNDING
Performance-linked funding applies to Student Achievement
Component (SAC) funded Tertiary Education Providers and toIndustry Training Organisations.
Performance-linked funding is one of a number of approaches
intended to improve educational outcomes for students andemployers and improve value for taxpayers’ money.
Performance-linked funding will be targeted to encourage all
Tertiary Education Providers and ITOs to reach an acceptable
standard of educational performance.
The TEC publishes performance information annually for allSAC-funded TEOs and ITOs.

2Tertiary Education Providers and ITOs also have to define
performance commitments as part of their Investment Plans.
These performance commitments encompass the Government’s
priorities in the Tertiary Education Strategy 2010–15, forexample, achievement for young people at higher levels of study.

KEY FEATURES OF THE PERFORMANCE-LINKED
FUNDING FRAMEWORK FOR THE SAC FUNDEDSECTOR
The performance of each SAC funded TEO will be measured at fourgrouped New Zealand Qualifications Framework (NZQF) levels: 1 - 2,3 - 4, 5 - 6 and 7 - 8. In order to create a level playing field,performance-linked funding treats all providers in each grouped
qualification level the same.
TEOs performing above the 50th percentile in each grouped
qualification level will continue to receive 100 percent of theirfunding.
A maximum of 5% of a TEO's funding in 2012, at each of thegrouped qualification levels, will be based on the provider'sperformance in 2011 against up to four of the following Educational
Performance Indicators:

Course completion rate: this measures successful course
completions as a proportion of course enrolments in a given year.

3

Qualification completion rate: this measures successful
qualification completions as a proportion of total enrolments in agiven year.

KEY FEATURES OF THE PERFORMANCE-LINKED
FUNDING FRAMEWORK FOR THE SAC FUNDEDSECTOR
Retention (completion/continuation): this measures the proportionof students in a given year that complete a qualification, or re-enrolat the same organization in the following year.
Progression: this measures the proportion of students who
progress to a higher level of study after completing a qualificationin the previous year.

4

These performance indicators have been selected for performancelinked funding as they are a good indication of a TEO's performancein relation to the educational achievement of its learners. Longerterm, it may be possible to include other outcomes, such as
students’ success in the labour market.

PBRFとは？
The primary goal of the PBRF is to ensure that excellent research in the tertiary
education sector is encouraged and rewarded. This entails assessing the research
performance of eligible TEOs and funding them on the basis of this performance.
Between 2004 and 2007 the PBRF progressively replaced the current EFTS (equivalentfull-time student) “top-up” funding for research.
The Government’s main aims for the PBRF are to:• increase the average quality of research• ensure that research continues to support degree and postgraduate teaching• ensure that funding is available for postgraduate students and new researchers• improve the quality of public information about research output• prevent undue concentration of funding that would undermine research support for all
degrees or prevent access to the system by new researchers, and5

• underpin the existing research strengths in the tertiary education sector.

THE THREE ELEMENTS OF THE PBRF
The PBRF is a “mixed” performance-assessment regime
because it employs both peer review processes andperformance measures. The three assessment elements are:1: a “Quality Evaluation” measure: this is a periodic assessmentof the research performance of eligible TEO staff, undertaken byexpert peer review panels. The fi rst round was completed in2003 and the second, a partial round, was held in 2006. The next
full round of the Quality Evaluation takes place in 2012. Thiselement makes up 60 percent of the fund.
2: a postgraduate “research degree completions” (RDC)
measure: this is a measurement of the number of PBRF eligible
postgraduate research-based degrees completed inparticipating TEOs, assessed on an annual basis. This element
makes up 25 percent of the fund.

63: an “external research income” (ERI) measure: this is ameasurement of the amount of income for research purposesreceived by participating TEOs from external sources, assessedon an annual basis. This element makes up 15 percent of thefund.

基準１：THE QUALITY EVALUATION MEASURE
The Quality Evaluation measure accounts for 60 percent of the total
funds allocated through the PBRF each year. The Quality Evaluation
process uses expert peer-review panels to assess research quality
based on material contained in individual researchers’ Evidence
Portfolios. Previous Quality
Evaluations were held in 2003 and 2006, and the scores from the latterare currently used in the funding calculation. The next Quality
Evaluation will be held in 2012.3 30. Funding in relation to the Quality
Evaluation is based on:• quality categories assigned to Evidence Portfolios (EPs)• funding weightings for the subject area to which EPs have been
assigned; and• Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) status PBRF-eligible staff as at the date ofthe PBRF Census

7(with the qualifications as outlined below in the section “FTE status ofstaff”).

FUNDING FORMULA FOR QUALITY EVALUATION MEASURE

8The funding formula for the proportion of the quality measure
allocated to each TEO is:QUALITY CATEGORIES

9The PBRF funding generated through the staff who articipate
in the Quality Evaluation is determined by the quality
category assigned to their EP by the relevant peer reviewpanel. These quality categories are then given a numericalweighting known as a ‘quality weighting’. The quality
weightings used in the 2006 Quality Evaluation are outlinedbelow.

FUNDING WEIGHTING FOR SUBJECT AREAS

10

Subject-area weightings are based on an EP’s primarysubject area of research. The current funding weightings for
subject areas are shown below

FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT STATUS OF STAFF
The FTE status of each staff member is also a factor in the formula. Funding isgenerated in proportion to FTE status (as supplied by TEOs in the PBRF Census:Staffing Return). Four particular considerations apply to FTE calculations, as follows:• When staff were concurrently employed at two TEOs during the year before theCensus date in 2006, they generated an FTE entitlement for each organisation based on
their FTE status in their employment agreement with each TEO.
• For most staff, the FTE that applied was the FTE status in the week of 12 June 2006 to16 June 2006. (The PBRF Census date for the 2006 Quality Evaluation was 14 June
2006.) However, if staff had changed their employment status within the TEO during theprevious 12 months, their FTE status was their average FTE over the period (forexample six months at 0.5 FTE and six months at 1 FTE = 0.75 FTE).
• When a staff member started employment in the 12-month period before the census
and was previously not employed by a participating TEO, then (providing they have anemployment agreement of one year or more) their FTE status was as their employment
agreement stated it to be at the census.

11• When a staff member left one participating TEO to take up a position in anotherparticipating TEO in the 12 months before the census, both TEOs had a proportional
FTE entitlement.

基準２：EXTERNAL RESEARCH INCOME
The external research income (ERI) measure accounts for 15 percent of
the total funds allocated through the PBRF each year. ERI is included asa performance measure in the PBRF on the basis that it provides a goodproxy for research quality. The underlying assumption is that external
research funders are discriminating in their choice of who to fund, andthat they will allocate their limited resources to those they see as
undertaking research of a high quality.
ERI is defined as the total research income received by a TEO (and/or
any wholly-owned subsidiary), excluding income from:• TEO employees who receive external research income in theirpersonal capacity (i.e. the externalresearch income is received by them and not their employer)• controlled trusts• partnerships

12• joint ventures.

EXTERNAL RESEARCH INCOME
Only income for work that has actually been undertaken may be
included in the ERI calculation.
A complete description of inclusions and exclusions is given inthe PBRF Guidelines 2006 (Chapter Five) along with guidanceon the status of joint or collaborative research.

13TEOs that participate in the ERI measure submit returns to theTEC showing the amount of PBRF-eligible ERI they have earned.
This amount represents their total PBRF-eligible ERI for the 12months ending 31 December of the preceding year. A
declaration signed by the TEO’s Chief Executive, as well as anindependent audit opinion, is provided to the TEC to support
each ERI calculation. If the total ERI is less than $200,000, theTEO is permitted to submit its worksheets in lieu of an
independent audit opinion.

FUNDING FORMULA FOR EXTERNAL RESEARCH INCOME MEASURE
The ERI measure is calculated as a weighted three-year rolling
average. The formula used to calculate the ERI measure for 2009 is:

14

The formula used to calculate the ERI measure for 2010 is:基準３：RESEARCH DEGREE COMPLETIONS
The research degree completions (RDC) measure accounts for 25 percent ofthe total funds to be allocated through the PBRF each year. The use of RDC
as a performance measure in the PBRF serves two key purposes:• It captures, to some degree, the connection between staff research andresearch training – thus providing some assurance of the future capability oftertiary education research; and • It provides a proxy for research quality.
The underlying assumption is that students choosing toundertake lengthy, expensive and advanced degrees (especially doctorates)
will tend to search out departments and supervisors that have excellent
reputations in the relevant fields for high quality research and researchtraining.
59. To be eligible for the RDC measure, research-based postgraduate
degrees (for example Masters and Doctorates) must be completed within aTEO and must meet the following criteria:• the degree has a research component of 0.75 Equivalent Full-Time Student(EFTS) value or more;• the student has completed the course successfully.

15• the student who has completed the degree has met all compulsory
academic requirements by 31 December of the relevant year; andRESEARCH DEGREE COMPLETIONS
Since early 2010, the TEC and PBRF-participating TEOs have been working
to reduce compliance costs and improve the transparency of the data
underpinning the RDC measure. This work has led to:• an agreed transition-path to using the SDR to count RDC, removing amanual corrections process• the introduction of agreed RDC business rules.

1661. 2009 PBRF allocations are the last to use RDC data that has been
supplied using a manual process outside the SDR. 2011 indicative
allocations have been calculated using RDC data directly extracted from theSDR, and 2010 funding wash-ups that are scheduled for July 2011 will also
use this approach.

FUNDING FORMULA FOR RESEARCH DEGREE COMPLETIONSMEASUREThe RDC measure is calculated as a weighted three-year rolling average. Theformula used to calculate the number of research degree completions foreach TEO is:

The funding formula for the proportion of the RDC measure allocated toeach TEO in 2009 is:

17

The funding formula for the proportion of the RDC measure allocated toeach TEO in 2010 is:

FUNDING FORMULA AND ALLOCATIONS
The funding formula for the RDC component includes weightings for:• the funding category of the subject area (a cost weighting);• Ma - ori and Pacific student completions (an equity weighting); and• the volume of research in the degree programme (a research-componentweighting).

18

Table below shows the cost weighting (for the subject area), which is thesame as that applied in the Quality Evaluation part of the PBRF and isdetermined by the course’s Student Achievement Component funding
category as set down in the course register.

配分結果
2004
$210,721$297,108$1,325,959$3,015,170$1,177,932$2,158,243$690,105$869,633

2005$505,984$713,415$3,183,899$7,240,038$2,828,456$5,182,379$1,657,082$2,088,167

2006$1,553,528$2,190,408$9,775,564$22,229,174$8,684,243$15,911,520$5,087,760$6,411,324

2007$3,390,225$3,861,572$18,017,865$33,443,196$13,118,260$27,758,620$7,896,033$12,049,109

2008$3,805,474$4,334,554$20,224,767$37,539,456$14,725,038$31,158,612$8,863,172$13,524,934

2009$3,921,882$4,467,147$20,843,440$38,687,782$15,175,475$32,111,749$9,134,295$13,938,659

2010$4,107,649$4,678,741$21,830,726$40,520,297$15,894,288$33,632,779$9,566,957$14,598,889

2011$4,108,163$4,679,326$21,833,456$40,525,364$15,896,276$33,636,984$9,568,154$14,600,714

PBRF RDC allocation
TEOAuckland University of Technology
Lincoln Univers ity
Mass ey University
Univers ity of Auckland
Univers ity of Canterbury
Univers ity of Otago
Univers ity of Waikato
Victoria Univers ity of Wellington

2004$66,028$151,212$704,195$880,778$610,146$893,745$390,257$402,076

2005$136,773$330,007$1,633,511$2,546,391$1,694,895$1,791,331$815,826$900,734

2006$519,782$1,046,292$4,723,206$9,081,237$4,679,754$4,819,082$2,549,434$2,796,146

2007$1,610,426$1,288,303$8,977,919$17,533,849$5,748,401$7,199,552$3,693,500$4,883,820

2008$2,031,786$1,996,892$9,958,596$18,941,949$5,954,158$9,861,896$4,485,196$3,687,545

2009$1,747,509$2,111,036$9,953,870$17,952,070$7,105,856$10,479,672$4,289,982$4,905,701

2010$2,750,001$1,847,373$8,553,337$18,880,667$8,628,278$10,729,964$4,272,878$5,727,470

2011$3,297,160$1,805,332$8,097,302$19,688,355$8,231,019$10,603,094$3,979,003$5,543,847

PBRF ERI allocation
TEO
Auckland University of Technology
Lincoln UniversityMassey University
University of Auckland
University of Canterbury
University of Otago
University of Waikato
Victoria University of Wellington

2004$15,678$109,043$307,913$887,860$183,372$676,647$136,564$159,2032005$46,347$306,603$789,690$2,220,465$429,558$1,476,666$332,408$337,801

2006$185,475$1,131,131$2,429,127$7,060,909$1,046,716$4,287,490$1,023,833$1,055,790

2007$436,671$1,886,049$4,015,882$11,753,204$1,756,910$7,198,166$1,707,052$1,897,384

2008$668,257$1,971,119$4,390,980$13,036,694$2,154,017$7,888,479$1,817,980$2,436,084

2009$750,737$2,019,161$4,553,416$13,159,165$2,432,052$8,031,620$1,826,897$2,642,736

2010$723,069$2,096,185$4,632,232$13,843,535$2,608,402$8,584,062$1,788,248$2,890,712

2011$701,081$1,997,286$4,732,732$13,743,207$3,011,603$8,279,778$1,820,769$2,944,408

19

PBRF QE allocation
TEO name
Auckland University of Technology
Lincoln University
Massey University
University of Auckland
University of Canterbury
University of Otago
University of Waikato
Victoria University of Wellington

効果計測：MAKING AN IMPACT（This report analyses the bibliometric performance of New
Zealand universities between 1994 and 2007 using data from
Thomson Reuters. The report also examines the impact ofthe Performance-Based Research Fund (PBRF) on theacademic impact of research by staff at New Zealanduniversities, as measured by citations per publication. Inaddition, the report compares the bibliometric performanceof New Zealand universities with Australian universities.
Author(s): Warren Smart, Tertiary Sector
Analysis & Reporting, Ministry of Education

Performance

20

Date Published: March 2009

効果計測：MAKING AN IMPACT
Summary of key findings• The share of world indexed publications produced by New Zealanduniversity authors has increased since the PBRF was introduced.
• The share of world indexed citations by New Zealand university
research has increased since the PBRF was introduced.
• The overall relative academic impact of research has increased sincethe PBRF was introduced.
• Between 2003 and 2007, the relative academic impact of New Zealanduniversity research was higher than the Group of Eight (G8) research
universities in Australia in three out of 10 broad subject areas.
• Between 2003 and 2007, the relative academic impact of New Zealanduniversity research was higher than the Non-G8 Australian universities

21in eight out of 10 broad subject areas.

効果計測：WHAT WE GET FOR WHAT WE SPEND
This report synthesises the inputs, outputs and outcomesof the Government‘s tertiary education expenditure over theperiod 2006 to 2010 in eight key funds. In total, these funds
distributed around $4.6 billion to providers and students in2010.
Author(s): Tertiary Sector Performance Analysis

22Date Published: February 2012

効果計測：WHAT WE GET FOR WHAT WE SPEND
Student Achievement Component (SAC) ($1,909 million in 2010)
Total SAC funding has increased in real terms between 2006 and 2010.
This has been driven by a moderate increase in the number of funded
equivalent full-time students (EFTS) and increases in funding rates.
Actual delivered EFTS increased by just 0.9 percent in 2010, with overdelivery in the system dropping to 4.4 percent in 2010, compared with
5.1 percent in 2009.
The value of successful course-level study increased in 2010 due to a
mix of continued over-delivery and the improvement in the percentage
of successful course-level study.
The five-year completion rate of students who studied SAC-funded
qualifications on a full-time basis continued to increase in 2010.
Between 2006 and 2010, an increasing proportion of SAC-funded
qualifications awarded were to students aged under 25 and studying atlevel 4 or higher. The proportion of Māori or Pasifika students
completing SAC-funded qualifications at level 4 or higher dropped
slightly in 2010.

23People with tertiary qualifications continued to enjoy higher earnings
premiums and a higher likelihood of employment than people withschool level or no qualifications.

効果計測：WHAT WE GET FOR WHAT WE SPEND
Performance-Based Research Fund (PBRF) ($250 million in2010)
There was a substantial increase in PBRF funding (includingresearch top-ups) between 2006 and 2010 in real terms.
Although dropping slightly in 2010, the amount of external
research income earned per staff member is significantly
higher than in 2006.
The volume of research degree completions per staff
member has continued to rise over time.
Postgraduate qualification completion rates have continued
to improve.

24

The rate of citation of indexed publications by authors fromNew Zealand tertiary education institutions has improved
over time.