S 23MAR11 A1 COVER SHEET FOR SENATE MAIN AGENDA PAPERS Title of Paper Academic Implications of Changes to University Funding Author of Paper Mr Rama Thirunamachandran, Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Provost Professor Pat Bailey, Dean of Natural Sciences Professor Andy Garner, Dean of Health Professor David Shepherd, Dean of Humanities and Social Sciences Karen Clarke, Director of Finance Claire Appleby, Director of Human Resources Type of Paper: A: Substantive Discussion Item X A: Preliminary Discussion Item B: Formal Approval Item C: Formal Recommendation to Council D: Item for Report Dates Previously Discussed: Committee of Senate Faculty University Executive Committee X Other Summary: In May 2010 Senate considered a paper on the academic implications of changes to University funding. Since that meeting work has been undertaken to achieve the £6.5m of staff savings identified by Council as necessary to support the University’s financial stability and sustainability, and updates on this work have been provided to University committees and to all staff members through emails from the Vice-Chancellor. While significant progress has been made against the £6.5m target, approximately £1.8m of staff savings remain to be found. The University Administration is undergoing significant reorganisation and planning is based on the understanding that the Administration should identify £0.5m of the remaining £1.8m. This paper outlines the process for achieving the remaining £1.3m of savings in the academic area and discusses the specific proposals that have been generated by the initial stages of this process. The conclusions and recommendations included in the paper are the product of work undertaken by a Staff

Savings Working Group convened for this purpose. It is the particular role of Senate to assess the academic implications of changes in staffing levels, and Senate is invited to comment on the specific recommendations for restructuring/reprofiling contained in this paper. Key risks to be managed: Financial stability and sustainability Student Experience S 23MAR11 A1 Action Required of Senate: It is the particular role of Senate to assess the academic implications of changes in staffing levels, and Senate is invited to comment on the specific recommendations for restructuring/reprofiling contained in this paper: 1.1.1 Efficiency savings of £250k to be achieved in the Faculty of Natural Sciences; 1.1.2 The closure of the Philosophy programme; 1.1.3 The closure of PEAK as a separate centre and integration of certain ethics activities into the Law School; 1.1.4 Efficiency savings of £300k to be achieved in the School of Humanities; 1.1.5 Efficiency savings of £100k to be achieved in the School of Pharmacy through the disestablishment of vacant posts. S 23MAR11 A1 Senate: Checklist of Issues to be Considered in Respect of all Proposals Procedural Issues 1. Is further discussion required through the Committee system? Yes X No n/a Council X Other 2. Will staff and / or students be consulted further before taking forward? Yes X No n/a Standards Issues

3. Could there be an impact on academic standards? Yes X No n/a Staff / Student Issues 4. Could there be an impact on employee or student relations? Yes X No n/a 5. Are there any equal opportunity issues? Yes x No n/a Risk / Opportunity Issues 6. Do existing commitments place any constraints on the proposal? Yes x No n/a 7. Could there be an impact on student recruitment? Positive x Negative x n/a 8. Could there be an external or internal PR impact? Positive x Negative x n/a 9. Are there any legal implications? Yes x No n/a AH 22 May 2002 1 CONFIDENTIAL Paper for Senate Academic Implications of Changes to University Funding 1.0 Introduction 1.1 In May 2010 Senate considered a paper on the academic implications of changes to University funding. Since that meeting work has been undertaken to achieve the £6.5m of staff savings identified by Council as necessary to support the University’s financial stability and sustainability, and updates on this work have been provided to University committees and to all staff members through emails from the Vice-Chancellor. 1.2 While significant progress has been made against the £6.5m target, approximately £1.8m of staff savings remain to be found. The University Administration is undergoing significant reorganisation and planning is based on the understanding that the Administration should identify £0.5m of the remaining £1.8m. This paper outlines the process for achieving the remaining

£1.3m of savings in the academic area and discusses the specific proposals that have been generated by the initial stages of this process. 1.3 The conclusions and recommendations included in the paper are the product of work undertaken by a Staff Savings Working Group convened for this purpose. It is the particular role of Senate to assess the academic implications of changes in staffing levels, and Senate is invited to comment on the specific recommendations for restructuring/reprofiling contained in this paper. 2.0 Background 2.1 At an extraordinary meeting of Senate on 26 May 2010 Senate considered a paper on the potential academic implications of changes to University funding and national policy. 2.2 Senate was asked to endorse the following recommendations: 2.2.1 The need to achieve £6.5m of savings over two years; 2.2.2 That reductions should be achieved differentially; 2.2.3 The changes to Continuing Education provision; 2.2.4 Advise on the challenges of educating a rich mix of students on a reduced staff base. 2.3 At the time of the extraordinary meeting the national funding situation was just beginning to crystallise, and it was clear that the University sector would be subject to substantial cuts in its funding from 2010/11 onwards, following an in-year cut in 2009/10. The University undertook extensive scenario modelling of the implications of known and expected funding cuts and it was shared with the University that £6.5m of staff cost savings would be required to ensure the long-term financial stability and sustainability of the University. 2.4 The Senate paper also outlined that Keele’s staff costs as a percentage of income were among the highest in the sector, and that this was of concern 2 both to the University’s principal funder, the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), and to other external bodies, such as credit- rating agencies. A recommendation was made to reduce Keele’s staff costs as a percentage of income from 65% to 58% (although the sector average is just under 56%), and this trajectory was endorsed by HEFCE, which continues to monitor Keele’s performance very closely against this and other key financial indicators. 2.5 Senate was provided at the extraordinary meeting in May 2010 with outline plans for achieving staff savings, including details of a general voluntary severance scheme and the opportunity for Schools to work with Deans to develop proposals to reduce costs and increase income. 2.6 Following extensive discussion, Senate endorsed the following: 2.6.1 The need to achieve substantial savings over two years;

2.6.2 The principle that these reductions should be achieved differentially. 3.0 Progress to Date 3.1 As reported at Council on 27 January 2011, the University has made significant progress towards achieving the £6.5m staff savings target. At the end of 2010 £4m of savings had been identified, to be delivered by academic year 2013/14. Further savings totalling £0.7m have been identified since Council met in January 2011. These further savings were generated by the general voluntary severance scheme, some partial retirements, non- replacement of leavers, and some staffing reductions related to reductions in NHS contracts. 3.2 It is anticipated that an additional £500k of savings will be achieved in the next two years through the re-organisation of the University Administration. This leaves a further £1.3m of savings to be achieved from the academic budget. 3.3 The need to achieve the maximum amount of staff cost savings is underscored by the continued volatility in the external funding environment. The University recently received notification from HEFCE of an in-year cut in grant for 2010/11 of £750k and a cut for 2011/12 of circa £2m in the HEFCE Teaching and Research grant, and a further £350k-£400k reduction in the grant from the Training and Development Agency (TDA). In addition, HEFCE Capital Funding will be cut by an average of 58%. These cuts exceed those provided for in the financial forecasts and reinforce the need for the University to work towards its plans for reducing staff costs and increasing income to ensure that it is on a sound financial footing to meet the challenges ahead. 3.4 In addition to the cuts in HEFCE and TDA funding, the University has been notified of significant cuts in NHS funding. The NHS contract for Nursing has been cut by £827k, through a 17.5% cut in commissioned student numbers. A significant cut of 25% (£3.5m) has also been announced in the Service Increment for Teaching (SIFT) funding which flows to our NHS partners and supports pay and non-pay elements of the clinical teaching in the Medical School. Proposals have been developed in conjunction with our partners to manage these reductions and so minimise the impact on the School of Nursing and the School of Medicine. 3 3.5 The University also faces the challenge of meeting the requirements of the new regime for EU undergraduate students. Information recently released on the National Scholarship Programme and the access agreement required by the Office for Fair Access is still being evaluated, and the University is in the process of formulating specific proposals for tuition fees to be charged in 2012/13. 3.6 It should be stressed that all information received from HEFCE to date, and in the University’s modelling of future financial scenarios, supports the need for Keele to continue to look to achieve the maximum amount of staff savings of £6.5m. Council endorsed this position at its meeting on 27 January 2011. Council also resolved that it was willing to exercise its right to establish a Redundancy Committee if it was required to do so by the plans put to Council at its meeting on 7 April 2011.

3.7 Council also agreed that the process for achieving the remaining savings should be as open and transparent as possible, and should be informed by strategic considerations and by robust and up-to-date information and metrics. 4.0 Guiding Principles for the Staffing Review 4.1 Following the meeting of Council on 27 January, the University Executive agreed to form a Working Group to begin the process of bringing forward recommendations in relation to the additional staff savings in the academic area. 4.2 The membership of the Working Group is the Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Provost (Chair), the three Deans of Faculty, the Director of Finance; and the Director of Human Resources. The Group has met on seven occasions in advance of the extraordinary meeting of Senate, and will continue to meet afterwards as necessary. 4.3 It was agreed that a set of Guiding Principles would be formulated to assist the Group in its work. In formulating these principles the Group was aware of the overarching aim of achieving the required savings while minimising the impact on the academic shape of the University, and its constituent strengths. The Principles were intended to provide a framework within which the Group could evaluate potential changes to academic areas. The Guiding Principles are: 4.3.1 Ensure that the Review reflects the University’s overall strategy, including considerations of size, academic shape, and range of activity, and enhances the University’s financial stability and sustainability. Any recommendations will be the product of strategic judgements, but will be properly informed by appropriate metrics, including: 4.3.1.1 Considering for restructuring Schools/activities/programmes running at a loss, at little better than breakeven, or at a level of contribution that is significantly and unjustifiably lower than that achieved by other Schools/activities/programmes. 4 4.3.1.2 Taking informed account of actual and potential performance (with particular reference to actual and potential recruitment of EU UG, international UG, and EU and international PGT). 4.3.1.3 Optimising the retention and redistribution of income associated with Schools/activities/programmes identified as part of the Review. 4.3.1.4 Minimising the impact on research capacity and activity (e.g. REF quality profiles and QR income; grant income; PGR supervision). 4.4 At all stages of the review process the Group has recognised the importance of maintaining a breadth of academic disciplines and the need to position the University’s academic base to respond to both internal and external strategic drivers. 4.5 The Group has also kept in mind at every stage of the process the paramount

importance of doing everything possible to minimise the impact of any proposed changes on the educational experience of all students, both current and prospective. 5.0 Process for Achieving £1.3m of Staff Savings in the Academic Area 5.1 The first stage of the Group’s work following the codification of the Guiding Principles was to agree an approach for developing a business case for change to achieve the £1.3m in required savings. It was agreed that the Group should, in the first instance, consider a range of metrics to allow for an objective analysis of all Schools. The agreed quantitative metrics were supplemented by qualitative information that provided context specific to each School in recognition of disciplinary differences and local issues. All the information was generated in consultation with Heads of School. 5.2 It was agreed that the quantitative metrics would be drawn from the agreed University financial information and cover the period 2009/10 to 2013/14, in order to provide trend data that looked forward. The following base metrics were collated for all Schools: 5.2.1 Staff costs as a percentage of income 5.2.2 Contribution generated as a percentage of income 5.2.3 Student:academic staff ratio 5.2.4 Student:support staff ratio 5.2.5 Ratio of academic staff to support staff 5.2.6 Percentage of academic salary cost borne by RI buy-out 5.3 Annex A includes the base metrics for all Schools. Further commentary on the metrics is included in section six of the paper. 5.4 It was recognised by the Group that it was important to share information with Heads of School at an early stage of the staffing review process. Initial meetings were held with Heads of School in all three Faculties, attended by the Dean and Director of Finance. These meetings outlined the decisions 5 taken by Council and the principles and processes agreed by the Working Group for developing proposals for Senate. 5.5 Following these initial discussions, further meetings were arranged between Heads of School, the Faculty Business Manager, School Managers and representatives from Finance to review the basic metrics and to capture additional data that would enhance and underpin the top level data for each School. A spreadsheet and guidance was provided at this stage for capturing this additional information on a consistent basis. 5.6 It should be noted that the University has performance expectations for all academic areas in relation to two key metrics: staff costs as a percentage of income, and gross contribution as a percentage of income. As noted above, the University has set itself a target, strongly endorsed by HEFCE, of reducing its overall staff costs from 65% to 58%. It is important to emphasise that this overall figure includes all staff costs in the University Administration as well as in the Faculties. It follows from this that the University expects

Schools to keep their staff costs at a level well below the University target percentage of 58%. However, the percentage of staff costs to income has a propensity to vary between and within different broad disciplinary groups, so that it would not be appropriate to identify a single target figure that every School can reasonably be expected to achieve. 5.7 The University has a general expectation for gross contribution as a percentage of income at School level of around 38-40%. Again, this will vary between subjects, and between areas funded from different sources. For example, professional practice-based subjects such as social work, teacher education, and those funded via NHS contracts (nursing and physiotherapy) have certain income and cost characteristics which are different from those of most other subjects. Similarly the cost structures of laboratory-based subjects are necessarily different from those of classroom-based subjects. 5.8 Therefore, it is acknowledged that in some cases disciplinary differences and external requirements (for example where minimum student staff ratios are stipulated by professional bodies) will necessarily mean that Schools cannot be expected to meet these thresholds. In evaluating the metrics the Group took these circumstances into account. 5.9 The top level and underpinning metrics and other qualitative information were used to inform the Group’s overall judgements in identifying areas for restructure or re-profiling as outlined in section seven of the paper. 6.0 Analysis of School Metrics 6.1 Following production of the baseline metrics for each School, the Group analysed the overall position of each School in relation to the qualitative metrics, as well as contextual information provided by the Head of School. 6.2 The analysis led the Group to the conclusion that it should make a recommendation in relation to the Faculty of Natural Sciences as a whole; this recommendation is outlined in the following section. 6.3 In relation to the other two Faculties, the analysis led the Group to identify a number of Schools that required further detailed review: 6 6.3.1.1 School of Humanities 6.3.1.2 School of Law 6.3.1.3 School of Pharmacy 6.3.1.4 School of Politics, International Relations, and Philosophy Detailed review of the metrics associated with these Schools led the Group to the conclusion that restructuring or re-profiling of some services would need to be considered for each of the identified Schools. Analysis was made of the distinct areas of academic delivery to ensure that any recommendations made to Senate related, in accordance with the agreed Guiding Principles, to areas where there was strong evidence of significant and unjustifiable underperformance and where savings would support financial stability and sustainability for the School moving forward. The specific recommendations associated with the identified Schools are outlined in the following section.

7.0 Recommendations for Restructuring/Reprofiling 7.1 Faculty of Natural Sciences 7.1.1 A detailed review of the baseline metrics for Schools in the Faculty of Natural Sciences demonstrated that all the baseline metrics were at or near expectation. 7.1.2 However, it was noted that in some cases trends across the forecast period indicated that the Faculty had scope for staff savings, although analysis did not allow any single area to be identified on the basis of metrics as the sole or major area in which savings ought to be identified. 7.1.3 Therefore, to support the future financial sustainability and stability of the Faculty, it was agreed to recommend that the Dean of Natural Sciences should identify and achieve staffing efficiencies across the Faculty of £250k. The Dean should work closely with the four Heads of School to achieve staffing efficiencies while protecting the Faculty's broad academic base. 7.2 School of Politics, International Relations and Philosophy (SPIRE) 7.2.1 Philosophy 7.2.1.1 As outlined at Annex A, the baseline metrics for SPIRE confirm that staff costs as a percentage of income are at a level that causes concern. 7.2.1.2 Analysis of the underlying metrics for the School’s three major disciplines (Politics; International Relations; Philosophy) clearly demonstrated that Philosophy had staff costs that were very high across the forecast period, rising to 91.4% by 2013/14. Philosophy’s gross contribution as a percentage of income also fell significantly short of the 38% target, falling across the forecast period to 2.8%. The contribution figures are 7 significantly and unjustifiably lower than those achieved by other programmes in the School. This is shown at Annex B. 7.2.1.3 The Group noted that Philosophy had no actual or potential recruitment over the forecast period of postgraduate taught students, an identified priority area for the University. 7.2.1.4 The Group noted that undergraduate FTEs currently associated with Philosophy could be redistributed to other programmes within the School without requiring additional resource, thereby protecting income. 7.2.1.5 The Group noted that the impact of staff reductions on research capacity in areas covered by the School and

associated Research Institute would be considerably less in the case of Philosophy than in those of Politics and International Relations. 7.2.1.6 After careful consideration the Staff Savings Working Group therefore recommends closure of the Philosophy programme, realising a saving of £300k. The impact of the implementation of this recommendation is that the School’s staff costs as a percentage of income reduce to 45% by the end of the forecast period, and the School’s contribution rises to 51.1% over the forecast period. 7.2.1.7 The Group recognises that this recommendation has implications for current recruitment to and future teaching of the programme, and that these will need to be addressed as a matter of priority. 7.3 School of Law 7.3.1 Centre for Professional Ethics at Keele (PEAK) 7.3.1.1 A review of the baseline metrics for Law confirmed that, although the metrics remained at or above the expected level for both staff costs and gross contribution, staff costs rose across the forecast period, while contribution fell. 7.3.1.2 Further analysis revealed that the reason for this was that PEAK had a substantial negative impact on the figures for the School as a whole. 7.3.1.3 The Group noted that across the forecast period both the staff costs and contribution levels for PEAK are at very significant variance with those expected, a variance unjustifiable in relation to the performance of other areas. In 2010/11 the staff costs are 119.4% of income, projected to fall to 94.6% at the end of the forecast period; the contribution remains negative throughout the forecast period (-29.8%, moving to -1.5%), meaning that the projected costs of PEAK remain consistently in excess of its projected income. This is shown at Annex C. 8 7.3.1.4 The Group noted that PEAK had underperformed in relation to postgraduate taught recruitment and in relation to the generation of external income, a key driver for the business of the Centre. 7.3.1.5 The Group recognised that the School of Law was committed to developing a more distinctive curriculum that included ethics as an element of legal education. 7.3.1.6 The Group noted that the impact of staff reductions on research capacity in areas covered by the School and

associated Research Institute would be considerably less in the case of Ethics than in that of Law. 7.3.1.7 After careful consideration, the Group agreed to recommend that PEAK as a separate centre should be closed, and that some activities associated with PEAK should be identified for integration with the rest of the Law School in order to contribute to its range of activities, including maintenance of recruitment to some postgraduate taught programmes. Implementation of this recommendation would realise a saving of £300k. The impact of the implementation of this recommendation is that the School’s staff costs as a percentage of income reduce to 46.6% by the end of the forecast period, and the School’s contribution rises to 48.7% over the forecast period. 7.3.1.8 The Group recognises that this recommendation has implications for current recruitment to and future teaching of programmes, and that these will need to be addressed as a matter of priority. 7.4 School of Humanities 7.4.1 A review of the baseline metrics for the School demonstrated that staff costs rose across the forecast period, while contribution decreased. The Group agreed that the rise in staff costs as a percentage of income was a concern. 7.4.2 The Group reviewed the underlying metrics for the School, which indicated an imbalance between the performance of areas within the School across the forecast period. However, analysis did not allow any single area to be identified on the basis of metrics as the sole or major contributor to the overall imbalance. 7.4.3 The Group noted that recruitment figures for overseas and postgraduate taught students could be improved. The Group also noted that, given the very strong performance by humanities disciplines in the 2008 RAE, the impact on the University’s research capacity would need to be evaluated when considering measures to secure the School’s financial stability. 9 7.4.4 The Group agreed that action should be taken to secure the future financial stability and sustainability of the School, and that the Dean should work closely with the School to achieve further efficiencies in its operation while minimising the impact on the School’s academic base. 7.4.5 The Group therefore recommends that academic workloads across the School of Humanities should be reviewed as a basis for realising efficiency savings of £300k while protecting the School’s broad academic base and the University’s research capacity in humanities.

The impact of the implementation of this recommendation is that the School’s staff costs as a percentage of income reduce to 49.6% by the end of the forecast period, and the School’s contribution rises to 46.7% over the forecast period. 7.5 School of Pharmacy 7.5.1 A review of the baseline metrics for the School of Pharmacy demonstrated a high level of staff costs across the forecast period, as well as a level of contribution that was less than the expected level. 7.5.2 The Group recognised that the School was relatively new and was in the process of building up to full capacity in terms of student numbers, and that its performance needed to be considered in the context of the laboratory and practice-based nature of the subject and the terms of its accreditation. 7.5.3 The Group noted that the School undertook a broad range of activities and that the varied nature of these activities could result in certain inefficiencies of operation. It was agreed that, in recognition of the varied nature of the School’s activities, action should be taken at School level to enhance efficiencies. 7.5.4 The Group agreed to recommend that the School of Pharmacy should realise efficiency savings of £100k through the disestablishment of vacant posts. The impact of the implementation of this recommendation is that the School’s staff costs as a percentage of income reduce to 57.4% by the end of the forecast period, and the School’s contribution rises to 27.7% over the forecast period. 8.0 Timetable for Further Action 8.1 Implementation of the recommendations outlined in section seven would achieve close to the £1.3m of staff savings required to support the realisation of the additional £1.8m of savings required by Council at its meeting of 27 January 2011. 8.2 In the paper to Council a timetable for further action was outlined. The proposed timetable included consultation with Senate during March 2011, 10 with recommendations, suitably informed by Senate, made to the Council meeting on 7 April 2011. 8.3 Council will be asked to endorse the specific recommendations in relation to: 8.3.1 Efficiency savings of £250k to be achieved in the Faculty of Natural Sciences; 8.3.2 The closure of the Philosophy programme;

8.3.3 The closure of PEAK as a separate centre and integration of some ethics activities into the Law School; 8.3.4 Efficiency savings of £300k to be achieved in the School of Humanities; 8.3.5 Efficiency savings of £100k to be achieved in the School of Pharmacy through the disestablishment of vacant posts. 8.4 It is proposed that Council be asked on 7 April to endorse a period of consultation with the affected areas to identify the recommended staffing reductions through voluntary means during the period April to June 2011, and to consider what implications this period of consultation might have for the actions agreed in principle at its meeting on 27 January. 8.5 Subject to the endorsement of Council, during the April to June 2011 period the University Executive Committee will monitor the progress of achieving implementation of the recommendations, including the development of specific proposals by identified areas to achieve staff savings through voluntary means. At the end of the consultation period, and in readiness for the Senate meeting on 23 June 2011, an update will be prepared that outlines whether the £1.3m of savings has been identified. If the £1.3m of savings has not been identified by voluntary means by this date, Senate and Council will be asked to consider further recommendations for achieving staffing reductions. A final set of proposals will then be taken to Council for consideration at its meeting on 30 June 2011. 9.0 Summary 9.1 It is the particular role of Senate to assess the academic implications of changes in staffing levels, and Senate is invited to comment on the specific recommendations for restructuring/reprofiling contained in this paper: 9.1.1 Efficiency savings of £250k to be achieved in the Faculty of Natural Sciences; 9.1.2 The closure of the Philosophy programme; 9.1.3 The closure of PEAK as a separate centre and integration of certain ethics activities into the Law School; 9.1.4 Efficiency savings of £300k to be achieved in the School of Humanities; 11 9.1.5 Efficiency savings of £100k to be achieved in the School of Pharmacy through the disestablishment of vacant posts. 9.2 Senate is reminded that the University, in partnership with staff, is working to respond to the rapidly evolving external environment in such a way as to best position Keele for the future.

Rama Thirunamachandran, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Chair of the Staff Savings Working Group) Professor Pat Bailey, Dean of Natural Sciences Professor Andy Garner, Dean of Health Professor David Shepherd, Dean of Humanities and Social Sciences Karen Clarke, Director of Finance Claire Appleby, Director of Human Resources 16 March 2011 School of Health & Rehabilitation ANNEX A Actual 2009/10 Latest Forecast 2010/11 Fcast 2011/12 Fcast 2012/13 Fcast 2013/14 Income 1,993,811 1,975,956 2,092,917 2,171,399 2,258,262 Staff Costs (after RI buyout) 1,256,662 1,253,739 1,252,045 1,252,045 1,252,045 Non Pay 190,215 172,703 172,703 172,703 172,703 Contribution / (loss) 546,933 549,514 668,169 746,651 833,514 Staff Cost as % of Income 63.0% 63.4% 59.8% 57.7% 55.4% Gross Contribution as a % of Income 27.4% 27.8% 31.9% 34.4% 36.9% Student FTEs UGH 200.1 181.3 196.0 175.7 165.1 UGO 18.2 26.2 33.7 37.6 44.2 PGTH 28.3 30.5 26.1 26.1 26.1 PGTO 9.8 9.4 4.5 4.5 4.5 PGR Taught Modules 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Student FTE 257.4 247.7 260.3 243.9 239.9 Staff FTE (before RI transfer) Academic Staff 18.00 17.10 17.10 17.10 17.10 Academic Related and Administration Staff 8.81 8.28 8.28 8.28 8.28 Technical Staff 1.00 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 Total Staff FTE 27.81 26.18 26.18 26.18 26.18 * Student to Staff Ratios Academic Staff 14.3 14.5 15.2 14.3 14.0 Academic Related and Administration Staff 29.2 29.9 31.4 29.5 29.0 Technical Staff 257.4 309.6 325.4 304.8 299.8 Total Student FTE to Overall Staff Ratio 9.3 9.5 9.9 9.3 9.2 Academic Salary Cost borne by RIs Cost of total academic staff 948,152 999,015 997,321 997,321 997,321 Cost of academic staff transferred to RIs 7,341 7,341 7,341 7,341 7,341 Net cost of academic staff 940,811 991,674 989,980 989,980 989,980 Percentage borne by RIs 0.8% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% Ratio Academic Staff to Support Staff 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9

12 School of Medicine ANNEX A Actual 2009/10 Latest Forecast 2010/11 Fcast 2011/12 Fcast 2012/13 Fcast 2013/14 Income 13,564,912 10,495,524 10,422,336 10,648,378 10,741,407 Staff Costs (after RI buyout) 6,937,112 5,055,932 4,867,635 4,959,011 5,074,172 Non Pay 1,694,346 1,408,426 981,179 981,179 981,179 Contribution / (loss) 4,933,454 4,031,166 4,573,522 4,708,188 4,686,056 Staff Cost as % of Income 51.1% 48.2% 46.7% 46.6% 47.2% Gross Contribution as a % of Income 36.4% 38.4% 43.9% 44.2% 43.6% Student FTEs UGH 599.0 603.5 607.5 597.7 591.6 UGO 23.0 33.2 33.8 36.9 41.0 PGTH 124.8 101.0 105.7 108.8 112.1 PGTO 8.3 15.0 17.9 18.3 18.6 PGR Taught Modules 0.4 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Student FTE 755.5 753.3 764.9 761.7 763.4 Staff FTE (before RI transfer) Academic Staff 68.00 74.36 79.37 79.37 79.37 Academic Related and Administration Staff 28.19 29.92 31.76 31.76 31.76 Technical Staff 8.73 9.16 9.44 9.44 9.44 Total Staff FTE 104.92 113.44 120.57 120.57 120.57 Student to Staff Ratios Academic Staff 11.1 10.1 9.6 9.6 9.6 Academic Related and Administration Staff 26.8 25.2 24.1 24.0 24.0 Technical Staff 86.5 82.2 81.0 80.7 80.9 Total Student FTE to Overall Staff Ratio 7.2 6.6 6.3 6.3 6.3 Academic Salary Cost borne by RIs Cost of total academic staff 4,373,462 3,550,325 3,636,797 3,711,880 3,810,452 Cost of academic staff transferred to RIs 7,058 7,058 7,058 7,058 7,058 Net cost of academic staff 4,366,404 3,543,267 3,629,739 3,704,822 3,803,394 Percentage borne by RIs 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% Ratio Academic Staff to Support Staff 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 13 School of Nursing & Midwifery ANNEX A Actual 2009/10 Latest Forecast 2010/11 Fcast 2011/12 Fcast 2012/13 Fcast 2013/14

Income 5,196,787 4,937,791 4,956,735 4,744,979 4,129,159 Staff Costs (after RI buyout) 3,228,385 3,204,966 3,104,091 2,962,853 2,541,609 ** Non Pay 1,087,757 915,240 951,864 933,065 867,359 Contribution / (loss) 880,645 817,585 900,780 849,061 720,191 Staff Cost as % of Income 62.1% 64.9% 62.6% 62.4% 61.6% ** Gross Contribution as a % of Income 16.9% 16.6% 18.2% 17.9% 17.4% Student FTEs UGH 535.0 599.0 629.0 560.0 499.0 UGO 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PGTH 0.0 4.0 7.5 9.0 10.5 PGTO 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PGR Taught Modules 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Student FTE 535.8 603.9 636.5 569.0 509.5 Staff FTE (before RI transfer) Academic Staff 43.71 43.61 43.48 41.48 36.18 Academic Related and Administration Staff 15.37 15.80 15.80 15.06 12.85 Technical Staff 1.75 2.10 2.10 2.00 2.00 Total Staff FTE 60.83 61.51 61.38 58.54 51.03 *** Student to Staff Ratios Academic Staff 12.3 13.8 14.6 13.7 14.1 Academic Related and Administration Staff 34.9 38.2 40.3 37.8 39.6 Technical Staff 306.2 287.6 303.1 284.5 254.8 Total Student FTE to Overall Staff Ratio 8.8 9.8 10.4 9.7 10.0 Academic Salary Cost borne by RIs Cost of total academic staff 2,579,117 2,711,039 2,628,774 2,512,293 2,152,732 Cost of academic staff transferred to RIs 10,852 10,852 10,852 10,852 10,852 Net cost of academic staff 2,568,265 2,700,187 2,617,922 2,501,441 2,141,880 Percentage borne by RIs 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.5% Ratio Academic Staff to Support Staff 2.6 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 14 School of Pharmacy ANNEX A 10th March Update Actual 2009/10 Latest Forecast 2010/11 Fcast 2011/12 Fcast 2012/13 Fcast 2013/14 * Income 4,592,244 4,626,535 4,975,198 5,101,305 5,049,266 * Staff Costs (after RI Buy-out) 2,852,284 2,830,806 2,880,555 2,944,674 2,999,172 * Non Pay 617,553 683,641 753,867 753,867 753,867 * Contribution / (loss) 1,122,407 1,112,088 1,340,776 1,402,764 1,296,227 * Staff Cost as % of Income 62.1% 61.2% 57.9% 57.7% 59.4% * Gross Contribution as a % of Income 24.4% 24.0% 26.9% 27.5% 25.7% Student FTEs UGH 244.42 267.18 325.52 317.87 304.54 UGO 19.47 24.93 31.50 31.20 31.20 PGTH 89.88 53.86 60.32 60.32 60.32 PGTO 1.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PGR Taught Modules 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Student FTE 355.7 346.0 417.3 409.4 396.1 Staff FTE (before RI transfer)

** Academic Staff 21.64 23.23 24.33 24.33 24.33 ** Academic Related and Administration Staff 6.86 7.28 7.28 7.28 7.28 ** Technical Staff 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 Total Staff FTE 33.00 35.01 36.11 36.11 36.11 Student to Staff Ratios Academic Staff 16.4 14.9 17.2 16.8 16.3 Academic Related and Administration Staff 51.8 47.5 57.3 56.2 54.4 Technical Staff 79.0 76.9 92.7 91.0 88.0 Total Student FTE to Overall Staff Ratio 10.8 9.9 11.6 11.3 11.0 Academic Salary Cost borne by RIs Cost of total academic staff 1,491,389 2,001,497 2,071,193 2,114,284 2,153,686 Cost of academic staff transferred to RIs 15,795 16,089 16,609 17,158 17,370 Net cost of academic staff 1,475,594 1,985,408 2,054,584 2,097,126 2,136,316 Percentage borne by RIs 1.1% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% Ratio Academic Staff to Support Staff 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.1 15 School of Humanities ANNEX A Actual 2009/10 Latest Forecast 2010/11 Fcast 2011/12 Fcast 2012/13 Fcast 2013/14 Income 4,608,938 4,356,650 4,109,210 3,836,447 3,832,252 Staff Costs (after RI Buy-out) 2,314,854 1,996,089 2,101,798 2,159,149 2,201,478 Non Pay 134,685 146,511 149,511 157,511 141,511 Contribution / (loss) 2,159,398 2,214,050 1,857,901 1,519,787 1,489,263 Staff Cost as % of Income 50.2% 45.8% 51.1% 56.3% 57.4% Gross Contribution as a % of Income 46.9% 50.8% 45.2% 39.6% 38.9% Student FTEs UGH 678.6 682.5 638.8 564.2 554.8 UGO 15.3 20.9 15.8 15.7 15.7 PGTH 5.8 12.8 13.5 27.0 32.4 PGTO 0.0 1.0 0.9 2.7 2.7 PGR Taught Modules 0.8 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Student FTE 700.5 718.5 669.0 609.5 605.6 Staff FTE (before RI transfer) Academic Staff 48.46 42.58 42.93 42.93 42.93 Academic Related and Administration Staff 9.26 8.55 8.64 8.64 8.64 Technical Staff 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Total Staff FTE 59.72 53.13 53.57 53.57 53.57 Student to Staff Ratios Academic Staff 14.5 16.9 15.6 14.2 14.1 Academic Related and Administration Staff 75.6 84.0 77.4 70.5 70.1 Technical Staff 350.2 359.3 334.5 304.8 302.8 Total Student FTE to Overall Staff Ratio 11.7 13.5 12.5 11.4 11.3 Academic Salary Cost borne by RIs Cost of total academic staff 2,787,153 2,487,460 2,636,947 2,716,831 2,771,742 Cost of academic staff transferred to RIs 864,866 862,971 916,101 940,979 959,058 Net cost of academic staff 1,922,287 1,624,489 1,720,846 1,775,852 1,812,684 Percentage borne by RIs 31.0% 34.7% 34.7% 34.6% 34.6% Ratio Academic Staff to Support Staff 4.3 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

16 Keele Management School ANNEX A Actual 2009/10 Latest Forecast 2010/11 Fcast 2011/12 Fcast 2012/13 Fcast 2013/14 Income 5,791,809 7,114,874 8,336,729 9,034,816 9,633,244 Staff Costs (after RI Buy-out) 2,232,344 2,249,833 2,467,907 2,502,573 2,577,712 Non Pay 455,530 667,688 1,018,138 1,112,188 1,113,888 Contribution / (loss) 3,103,935 4,197,353 4,850,684 5,420,055 5,941,643 Staff Cost as % of Income 38.5% 31.6% 29.6% 27.7% 26.8% Gross Contribution as a % of Income 53.6% 59.0% 58.2% 60.0% 61.7% Student FTEs UGH 461.4 541.2 537.7 476.8 479.6 UGO 120.1 233.1 349.2 371.0 406.9 PGTH 53.4 37.4 63.5 63.5 63.5 PGTO 137.6 136.7 139.1 202.0 209.2 PGR Taught Modules 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Student FTE 773.4 948.7 1,089.5 1,113.3 1,159.3 Staff FTE (before RI transfer) Academic Staff 43.14 38.01 44.42 43.67 43.92 Academic Related and Administration Staff 12.75 13.33 14.00 14.00 14.00 Technical Staff 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Staff FTE 55.89 51.34 58.42 57.67 57.92 Student to Staff Ratios Academic Staff 17.9 25.0 24.5 25.5 26.4 Academic Related and Administration Staff 60.7 71.2 77.8 79.5 82.8 Technical Staff N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A Total Student FTE to Overall Staff Ratio 13.8 18.5 18.6 19.3 20.0 Academic Salary Cost borne by RIs Cost of total academic staff 2,280,027 1,915,249 2,153,219 2,183,121 2,254,118 Cost of academic staff transferred to RIs 445,456 126,542 148,492 154,341 160,359 Net cost of academic staff 1,834,571 1,788,707 2,004,727 2,028,780 2,093,759 Percentage borne by RIs 19.5% 6.6% 6.9% 7.1% 7.1% Ratio Academic Staff to Support Staff 3.4 2.9 3.2 3.1 3.1 17 School of Law ANNEX A Actual 2009/10 Latest Forecast 2010/11 Fcast 2011/12 Fcast 2012/13 Fcast

2013/14 Income 3,576,781 3,639,568 3,502,882 3,322,728 3,476,476 Staff Costs (after RI Buy-out) 1,719,700 1,746,378 1,806,626 1,867,812 1,918,412 Non Pay 152,292 143,950 178,950 165,450 165,450 Contribution / (loss) 1,704,789 1,749,240 1,517,306 1,289,466 1,392,614 Staff Cost as % of Income 48.1% 48.0% 51.6% 56.2% 55.2% Gross Contribution as a % of Income 47.7% 48.1% 43.3% 38.8% 40.1% Student FTEs UGH 447.8 417.7 406.7 347.0 346.7 UGO 49.2 69.8 55.3 52.2 52.6 PGTH 82.3 113.7 111.9 130.0 146.7 PGTO 4.7 6.8 8.9 10.7 12.6 PGR Taught Modules 7.9 7.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 Total Student FTE 591.9 615.4 589.8 546.9 565.6 Staff FTE (before RI transfer) Academic Staff 34.0 32.2 32.6 32.6 32.7 Academic Related and Administration Staff 7.2 6.7 7.5 7.5 7.5 Technical Staff 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Staff FTE 41.3 38.92 40.16 40.04 40.21 Student to Staff Ratios Academic Staff 17.4 19.1 18.1 16.8 17.3 Academic Related and Administration Staff 81.7 91.6 78.4 73.0 75.5 Technical Staff N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A Total Student FTE to Overall Staff Ratio 14.3 15.8 14.7 13.7 14.1 Academic Salary Cost borne by RIs Cost of total academic staff 1,952,181 1,918,018 1,987,457 2,058,983 2,114,795 Cost of academic staff transferred to RIs 429,494 393,902 410,636 425,985 436,360 Net cost of academic staff 1,522,687 1,524,116 1,576,821 1,632,998 1,678,435 Percentage borne by RIs 22.0% 20.5% 20.7% 20.7% 20.6% Ratio Academic Staff to Support Staff 4.7 4.8 4.3 4.3 4.4 18 School of Public Policy and Professional Practice ANNEX A Actual 2009/10 Latest Forecast 2010/11 Fcast 2011/12 Fcast 2012/13 Fcast 2013/14 Income 6,008,228 5,191,240 4,719,021 4,844,978 5,008,567 Staff Costs (after RI Buy-out) 2,639,676 2,581,907 2,485,238 2,359,972 2,415,224 Non Pay 1,027,804 1,167,605 990,763 996,251 1,001,794 Contribution / (loss) 2,340,748 1,441,728 1,243,020 1,488,755 1,591,549 Staff Cost as % of Income 43.9% 49.7% 52.7% 48.7% 48.2% Gross Contribution as a % of Income 39.0% 27.8% 26.3% 30.7% 31.8% Student FTEs UGH 124.6 144.3 149.5 144.2 144.1 UGO 2.1 2.2 1.3 1.2 1.2 PGTH 419.5 399.3 468.0 510.3 556.9 PGTO 13.2 14.1 11.3 11.3 11.3 PGR Taught Modules 0.2 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Student FTE 559.6 563.4 630.1 667.0 713.5 Staff FTE (before RI transfer)

Academic Staff 39.64 31.28 32.52 29.44 29.70 Academic Related and Administration Staff 15.40 14.17 15.19 15.23 15.23 Technical Staff 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Total Staff FTE 56.04 46.45 48.70 45.68 45.93 Student to Staff Ratios Academic Staff 14.1 18.0 19.4 22.7 24.0 Academic Related and Administration Staff 36.3 39.8 41.5 43.8 46.8 Technical Staff 559.6 563.4 630.1 667.0 713.5 Total Student FTE to Overall Staff Ratio 10.0 12.1 12.9 14.6 15.5 Academic Salary Cost borne by RIs Cost of total academic staff 1,921,869 2,009,807 2,082,803 1,953,575 2,006,600 Cost of academic staff transferred to RIs 380,195 530,514 545,541 551,832 561,112 Net cost of academic staff 1,541,674 1,479,294 1,537,262 1,401,743 1,445,488 Percentage borne by RIs 19.8% 26.4% 26.2% 28.2% 28.0% Ratio Academic Staff to Support Staff 2.4 2.1 2.0 1.8 1.8 19 School of Sociology and Criminology ANNEX A Actual 2009/10 Latest Forecast 2010/11 Fcast 2011/12 Fcast 2012/13 Fcast 2013/14 Income 1,923,304 1,987,071 1,974,572 2,079,523 2,112,568 Staff Costs (after RI Buy-out) 1,192,165 963,904 938,477 967,525 989,059 Non Pay 31,402 43,406 43,406 43,406 43,406 Contribution / (loss) 699,737 979,761 992,689 1,068,591 1,080,104 Staff Cost as % of Income 62.0% 48.5% 47.5% 46.5% 46.8% Gross Contribution as a % of Income 36.4% 49.3% 50.3% 51.4% 51.1% Student FTEs UGH 294.5 305.7 304.5 305.6 304.9 UGO 10.6 20.1 19.0 21.9 21.9 PGTH 5.5 12.8 14.3 17.5 22.4 PGTO 0.1 1.1 1.8 3.6 3.6 PGR Taught Modules 2.8 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Student FTE 313.5 344.4 339.6 348.5 352.8 Staff FTE (before RI transfer) Academic Staff 21.88 18.23 18.58 18.70 18.70 Academic Related and Administration Staff 4.50 4.17 3.50 3.50 3.50 Technical Staff 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Staff FTE 26.38 22.40 22.08 22.20 22.20 Student to Staff Ratios Academic Staff 14.3 18.9 18.3 18.6 18.9 Academic Related and Administration Staff 69.7 82.7 97.0 99.6 100.8 Technical Staff N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A Total Student FTE to Overall Staff Ratio 11.9 15.4 15.4 15.7 15.9 Academic Salary Cost borne by RIs Cost of total academic staff 1,339,722 1,106,468 1,182,794 1,216,944 1,242,381 Cost of academic staff transferred to RIs 277,264 265,751 355,145 363,113 369,979 Net cost of academic staff 1,062,458 840,717 827,649 853,831 872,403 Percentage borne by RIs 20.7% 24.0% 30.0% 29.8% 29.8% Ratio Academic Staff to Support Staff 4.9 4.4 5.3 5.3 5.3

20 School of Politics, International Relations & Philosophy ANNEX A Actual 2009/10 Latest Forecast 2010/11 Fcast 2011/12 Fcast 2012/13 Fcast 2013/14 Income 2,482,911 2,431,969 2,683,907 2,516,396 2,584,504 Staff Costs (after RI Buy-out) 1,518,824 1,462,027 1,450,167 1,427,919 1,472,314 Non Pay 89,835 100,280 100,280 100,280 100,280 Contribution / (loss) 874,251 869,662 1,133,460 988,197 1,011,911 Staff Cost as % of Income 61.2% 60.1% 54.0% 56.7% 57.0% Gross Contribution as a % of Income 35.2% 35.8% 42.2% 39.3% 39.2% Student FTEs UGH 344.4 352.3 358.5 300.0 290.6 UGO 17.1 22.5 37.7 44.5 52.2 PGTH 30.0 26.4 39.8 43.7 48.1 PGTO 8.0 15.8 11.1 13.0 15.1 PGR Taught Modules 0.8 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Student FTE 400.3 419.7 447.2 401.3 406.0 Staff FTE (before RI transfer) Academic Staff 29.22 28.44 27.54 27.46 26.87 Academic Related and Administration Staff 5.82 5.92 5.88 5.88 5.88 Technical Staff 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Staff FTE 35.04 34.36 33.42 33.34 32.75 Student to Staff Ratios Academic Staff 13.7 14.8 16.2 14.6 15.1 Academic Related and Administration Staff 68.8 70.9 76.0 68.3 69.0 Technical Staff N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A Total Student FTE to Overall Staff Ratio 11.4 12.2 13.4 12.0 12.4 Academic Salary Cost borne by RIs Cost of total academic staff 1,704,969 1,709,278 1,701,831 1,673,246 1,727,512 Cost of academic staff transferred to RIs 373,239 445,922 456,315 454,307 467,759 Net cost of academic staff 1,331,730 1,263,356 1,245,516 1,218,939 1,259,753 Percentage borne by RIs 21.9% 26.1% 26.8% 27.2% 27.1% Ratio Academic Staff to Support Staff 5.0 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 21 School of Computing and Mathematics ANNEX A Actual 2009/10 Latest Forecast 2010/11 Fcast 2011/12 Fcast 2012/13 Fcast

2013/14 Income 2,438,547 3,239,420 3,933,078 4,373,659 4,500,918 Staff Costs (after RI buy-out) 1,623,477 1,826,731 1,872,432 1,925,687 1,981,449 Non Pay 203,044 236,151 238,513 240,898 243,307 Contribution / (loss) 612,026 1,176,538 1,822,133 2,207,074 2,276,162 Staff Cost as % of Income 66.6% 56.4% 47.6% 44.0% 44.0% Gross Contribution as a % of Income 25.1% 36.3% 46.3% 50.5% 50.6% Student FTEs UGH 281.9 385.4 470.6 493.1 493.1 UGO 16.0 29.2 54.3 66.0 67.7 PGTH 18.2 15.3 11.6 12.7 14.0 PGTO 23.5 21.3 14.0 18.4 22.2 PGR Taught Modules 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Student FTE 339.6 451.2 550.5 590.2 597.0 Staff FTE (before RI transfer) Academic Staff 25.70 27.49 27.58 27.46 27.38 Academic Related and Administration Staff 6.21 6.21 6.21 6.21 6.21 Technical Staff 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 Total Staff FTE 36.91 38.70 38.79 38.67 38.59 Student to Staff Ratios Academic Staff 13.2 16.4 20.0 21.5 21.8 Academic Related and Administration Staff 54.7 72.7 88.6 95.0 96.1 Technical Staff 67.9 90.2 110.1 118.0 119.4 Total Student FTE to Overall Staff Ratio 9.2 11.7 14.2 15.3 15.5 Academic Salary Cost borne by RIs Cost of total academic staff 1,571,888 1,647,053 1,667,990 1,707,771 1,749,541 Cost of academic staff transferred to RIs 290,721 193,604 171,294 171,294 171,294 Net cost of academic staff 1,281,167 1,453,449 1,496,696 1,536,477 1,578,247 Percentage borne by RIs 18.5% 11.8% 10.3% 10.0% 9.8% Ratio Academic Staff to Support Staff 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.4 22 School of Life Sciences ANNEX A Actual 2009/10 Latest Forecast 2010/11 Fcast 2011/12 Fcast 2012/13 Fcast 2013/14 Income 3,471,864 4,015,598 3,994,480 3,841,408 3,751,413 Staff Costs (after RI buy-out) 1,547,341 1,764,904 1,859,266 1,943,004 2,016,003 Non Pay 147,050 301,015 311,366 315,280 319,186 Contribution / (loss) 1,777,473 1,949,679 1,823,848 1,583,124 1,416,224 Staff Cost as % of Income 44.6% 44.0% 46.5% 50.6% 53.7% Gross Contribution as a % of Income 51.2% 48.6% 45.7% 41.2% 37.8% Student FTEs UGH 377.7 427.8 431.1 373.7 353.1 UGO 19.7 20.7 26.2 25.5 28.2 PGTH 17.1 19.7 21.4 23.5 25.9 PGTO 6.2 3.3 5.5 6.0 6.6 PGR Taught Modules 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Student FTE 420.7 471.4 484.2 428.8 413.9 Staff FTE (before RI transfer)

Academic Staff 23.68 26.14 25.83 25.93 25.93 Academic Related and Administration Staff 5.40 5.40 6.46 6.46 6.46 Technical Staff 10.98 11.00 12.25 12.25 12.25 Total Staff FTE 40.06 42.54 44.54 44.64 44.64 Student to Staff Ratios Academic Staff 17.8 18.0 18.7 16.5 16.0 Academic Related and Administration Staff 77.9 87.3 74.9 66.4 64.1 Technical Staff 38.3 42.9 39.5 35.0 33.8 Total Student FTE to Overall Staff Ratio 10.5 11.1 10.9 9.6 9.3 Academic Salary Cost borne by RIs Cost of total academic staff 1,460,888 1,566,815 1,607,919 1,655,653 1,703,433 Cost of academic staff transferred to RIs 355,215 313,684 313,684 313,684 313,684 Net cost of academic staff 1,105,673 1,253,131 1,294,235 1,341,969 1,389,749 Percentage borne by RIs 24.3% 20.0% 19.5% 18.9% 18.4% Ratio Academic Staff to Support Staff 1.4 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.4 23 School of Physical and Geographical Sciences ANNEX A Actual 2009/10 Latest Forecast 2010/11 Fcast 2011/12 Fcast 2012/13 Fcast 2013/14 Income 5,381,107 6,055,621 6,582,779 6,857,430 7,136,389 Staff Costs (after RI buy-out) 2,460,706 2,846,064 3,085,374 3,228,827 3,389,285 Non Pay 558,157 477,890 467,519 471,967 544,212 Contribution / (loss) 2,362,244 2,731,667 3,029,886 3,156,636 3,202,892 Staff Cost as % of Income 45.7% 47.0% 46.9% 47.1% 47.5% Gross Contribution as a % of Income 43.9% 45.1% 46.0% 46.0% 44.9% Student FTEs UGH 580.1 638.6 741.3 714.2 680.1 UGO 15.3 25.4 38.7 48.6 52.1 PGTH 21.9 19.4 7.8 8.6 9.4 PGTO 2.6 2.3 3.9 4.3 4.7 PGR Taught Modules 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Student FTE 619.9 685.7 791.7 775.7 746.3 Staff FTE (before RI transfer) Academic Staff 43.55 45.93 46.08 46.60 47.60 Academic Related and Administration Staff 8.84 7.87 7.87 7.87 8.37 Technical Staff 16.04 15.61 15.70 15.70 15.70 Total Staff FTE 68.43 69.41 69.65 70.17 71.67 Student to Staff Ratios Academic Staff 14.2 14.9 17.2 16.6 15.7 Academic Related and Administration Staff 70.1 87.1 100.6 98.6 89.2 Technical Staff 38.6 43.9 50.4 49.4 47.5 Total Student FTE to Overall Staff Ratio 9.1 9.9 11.4 11.1 10.4 Academic Salary Cost borne by RIs Cost of total academic staff 2,398,756 2,560,461 2,632,159 2,744,962 2,864,116 Cost of academic staff transferred to RIs 694,739 498,536 351,565 351,565 351,565 Net cost of academic staff 1,704,017 2,061,925 2,280,594 2,393,397 2,512,551 Percentage borne by RIs 29.0% 19.5% 13.4% 12.8% 12.3% Ratio Academic Staff to Support Staff 1.8 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

24 School of Psychology ANNEX A Actual 2009/10 Latest Forecast 2010/11 Fcast 2011/12 Fcast 2012/13 Fcast 2013/14 Income 2,472,998 2,632,565 2,534,129 2,650,700 2,738,584 Staff Costs (after RI buy-out) 1,232,026 1,368,094 1,336,514 1,344,771 1,390,579 Non Pay 119,478 158,000 159,580 161,176 162,788 Contribution / (loss) 1,121,494 1,106,471 1,038,035 1,144,753 1,185,217 Staff Cost as % of Income 49.8% 52.0% 52.7% 50.7% 50.8% Gross Contribution as a % of Income 45.3% 42.0% 41.0% 43.2% 43.3% Student FTEs UGH 283.0 290.2 289.9 277.7 275.4 UGO 11.3 15.1 9.7 10.2 11.8 PGTH 52.4 75.3 81.1 89.1 98.1 PGTO 4.0 6.8 5.9 6.5 7.2 PGR Taught Modules 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Student FTE 350.7 387.6 386.6 383.5 392.5 Staff FTE (before RI transfer) Academic Staff 21.32 21.20 20.47 20.02 20.02 Academic Related and Administration Staff 5.22 5.70 5.70 5.70 5.70 Technical Staff 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Total Staff FTE 29.54 29.90 29.17 28.72 28.72 Student to Staff Ratios Academic Staff 16.4 18.3 18.9 19.2 19.6 Academic Related and Administration Staff 67.2 68.0 67.8 67.3 68.9 Technical Staff 116.9 129.2 128.9 127.8 130.8 Total Student FTE to Overall Staff Ratio 11.9 13.0 13.3 13.4 13.7 Academic Salary Cost borne by RIs Cost of total academic staff 1,170,945 1,216,071 1,163,319 1,161,419 1,197,444 Cost of academic staff transferred to RIs 206,656 143,161 129,782 129,782 129,782 Net cost of academic staff 964,289 1,072,910 1,033,537 1,031,637 1,067,662 Percentage borne by RIs 17.6% 11.8% 11.2% 11.2% 10.8% Ratio Academic Staff to Support Staff 2.6 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.3 25 School of Politics, International Relations & Philosophy - Philosophy ANNEX B Latest Forecast 2010/11 Fcast 2011/12 Fcast 2012/13 Fcast 2013/14 Income 422,014 402,018 347,742 338,143 Staff Costs (after RI Buy-out) 274,302 295,030 304,385 309,101

Non Pay 19,435 19,435 19,435 19,435 Contribution / (loss) 128,276 87,552 23,921 9,606 Staff Cost as % of Income 65.0% 73.4% 87.5% 91.4% Gross Contribution as a % of Income 30.4% 21.8% 6.9% 2.8% Student FTEs UGH 70.7 69.1 57.4 54.6 UGO 2.2 0.9 1.2 1.5 PGTH 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PGTO 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PGR Taught Modules 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Student FTE 72.9 70.0 58.7 56.2 Staff FTE (before RI transfer) Academic Staff 4.87 4.88 4.88 4.88 Academic Related and Administration Staff 1.40 1.42 1.42 1.43 Technical Staff 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Staff FTE 6.27 6.30 6.30 6.31 Student to Staff Ratios Academic Staff 15.0 14.3 12.0 11.5 Academic Related and Administration Staff 52.2 49.4 41.3 39.3 Technical Staff N.A N.A N.A N.A Total Student FTE to Overall Staff Ratio 11.6 11.1 9.3 8.9 Academic Salary Cost borne by RIs Cost of total academic staff 268,324 287,633 295,776 300,523 Cost of academic staff transferred to RIs 36,663 37,521 38,090 38,646 Net cost of academic staff 231,661 250,112 257,686 261,878 Percentage borne by RIs 13.7% 13.0% 12.9% 12.9% Ratio Academic Staff to Support Staff 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.4 26 School of Law - Ethics ANNEX C Latest Forecast 2010/11 Fcast 2011/12 Fcast 2012/13 Fcast 2013/14 Income 386,939 413,281 484,507 534,425 Staff Costs (after RI Buy-out) 461,949 480,755 494,840 505,437 Non Pay 40,250 37,250 37,250 37,250 Contribution / (loss) (115,260) (104,724) (47,583) (8,262) Staff Cost as % of Income 119.4% 116.3% 102.1% 94.6% Gross Contribution as a % of Income -29.8% -25.3% -9.8% -1.5% Student FTEs UGH 2.5 8.5 12.5 12.2 UGO 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 PGTH 67.1 62.2 68.9 76.1 PGTO 0.1 1.0 1.1 1.2 PGR Taught Modules 7.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 Total Student FTE 77.4 78.7 89.5 96.5 Staff FTE (before RI transfer) Academic Staff 9.30 9.28 9.32 9.32 Academic Related and Administration Staff 1.47 1.77 1.77 1.77 Technical Staff 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Staff FTE 10.77 11.05 11.09 11.09 Student to Staff Ratios Academic Staff 8.3 8.5 9.6 10.3 Academic Related and Administration Staff 52.8 44.6 50.7 54.6

Technical Staff N.A N.A N.A N.A Total Student FTE to Overall Staff Ratio 7.2 7.1 8.1 8.7 Academic Salary Cost borne by RIs Cost of total academic staff 532,176 551,201 566,971 578,634 Cost of academic staff transferred to RIs 115,342 119,043 121,995 124,374 Net cost of academic staff 416,835 432,158 444,975 454,259 Percentage borne by RIs 21.7% 21.6% 21.5% 21.5% Ratio Academic Staff to Support Staff 6.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 27