A panel of experts discuss the health workforce crisis at the UA Solutions Summit 2025. Picture: UA
Three Australian healthcare experts last week told universities how to solve the biggest challenges and possible solutions to a number of issues.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
There’s always a challenge in trying to describe knowledge exchange, how it’s funded, why it’s worth worrying about, and what it actually does to the economy.
The default is to talk about its underpinning mechanisms. The way that money goes to universities, their partners and then circulates into the real economy, and then hopefully something good happens. The problem with this approach is that outside of experts and hardy enthusiasts like me this approach is, well, rather dull.
And knowledge exchange is a less than glamorous name for some of the most important work universities do. ESRC, one of UKRI’s funding councils, has a rather elegant way of describing it:
The Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) is committed to encouraging collaboration between researchers and businesses, policymakers, the public and third sector organisations (for example charities and voluntary groups). This can create mutual benefits and contribute to positive economic and social impacts outside academia, for example through changes to policy and practice or new products and services created by commercialising research. Two-way interactions of this type are often collectively referred to as knowledge exchange. This is an umbrella term that covers a wide range of activities researchers might engage in, including policy engagement, public engagement, commercialisation and business engagement.
A less elegant way is to say that universities working together with other organisations can make the economy and society stronger. It is not a dry technocratic thing but the very way in which the wonderful things that are produced in universities become useful. Great ideas without an audience are interesting but fruitless. An expectant audience with no great ideas are bound for disappointment.
This means that there must be both the conditions for useful ideas to be produced and the conditions for organisations to make use of them. Research England, another funding body of UKRI, funds knowledge exchange through the Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF) and the Connecting Capability Fund (CCF). While HEIF is a more general knowledge exchange fund the CCF is focussed on the commercialisation of research with business. These funds are small compared to the overall research funding pots. HEIF is a formula based fund of £260m compared to an overall UKRI budget of over £8bn.
The key question isn’t whether knowledge exchange is a good thing. It self evidently is. But whether the intervention by funders is producing bigger impacts than would naturally happen through universities working with businesses, policy makers, and other groups. After all, universities would still benefit from equity in spin-outs and bask in the warm glow of civic participation even if they weren’t supported to do so.
UKRI has brought out three new reports that look at knowledge exchange funding.
The first report is an evaluation of HEIF carried out by Tomas Coates Ulrichsen. The part which UKRI will be most proud of, and should definitely cause them to consider whether their funding is enough, is that every £1 invested in HEIF produces £14.8 return on investment if you crowd in actual and estimated external impacts. Perhaps even more impressively the report also suggests that “38% of knowledge exchange outputs and incomes would not have happened in the absence of HEIF.” This isn’t activity that is being paid for twice but activity that is actually being created.
However, while this makes the case persuasively for the value of HEIF it’s the summary which gives us a bigger clue into what is going on in the economy. The report notes
The past two decades has seen KE income secured by English HEPs grow significantly in real terms, with KE income 81% higher in 2022/23 than in 2003/04 for HEPs in receipt of HEIF during the period 2017/18 – 2022/23 (the vast majority of HEPs in England). However, what is clear is that this twenty-year period is characterised by two very different decades. While KE income grew strongly – and faster than the economy as a whole – during the first decade, the past ten years has seen this growth largely stagnate. The limited growth in KE income may well reflect the multiple crises and shocks the UK has faced since then, not least with the Covid-19 pandemic, cost of living crisis, and departure from the European Union and the effects of this on R&D with research grants and contracts income to HEPs from European sources declining almost 30% in real terms since the EU referendum in 2016. KE income now appears to track trends in the economy more widely (as measured by the UK’s GDP).
To read the inverse of this is that the wider economy is a constraining factor on the ability of universities to deploy their research for social and economic benefit.
There is perhaps a tacit assumption that if universities produce great and useful research it will lead to great and useful things in the economy and society. This is only true as long as the economy has the absorptive capacity to keep the cycle of knowledge exchange investment which leads to knowledge exchange outputs which supports knowledge exchange income churning.
The evaluation of HEIF carried out by PA Consulting is particularly illuminating within this frame. The key findings are that in a changing policy environment HEIF has anchored the sector to make some significant social and economic impacts. It is the flexibility of the fund which has allowed specialisms to develop, the autonomy of the fund has found favourability in the sector, its stability has allowed for long-term partnerships, and a more permissive approach to accountability has allowed providers to demonstrate their value without drowning under administration.
The report is full of examples of how HEIF funding has catalysed wider social and economic activity but the examples have two things in common. The first is that allowing flexibility in the fund means it can be deployed in multiple partners in multiple ways. This means that even where there are wider economic challenges the funding can be tailored to suit the challenges of local economies. The second is that the long-term nature of the fund allows for greater stability within partnerships to withstand adverse economic headwinds.
Together, the two reports point toward HEIF as being successful as it demonstrably supports economic growth but does so through flexibility and provider autonomy linked, to a lesser or greater extent, to national priorities. It’s only a small fund but it is impactful.
The final report on CCF by Wellspring again demonstrates a positive return on investment. The programme has led to 200 new spin-outs and supported over 1,500 SMEs. The programme has led to the launch of at least 338 products and services and it is expected more will be launched over time, particularly in high-tech spin-outs.
The obvious albeit incorrect conclusion to draw would be that if each of these interventions induce such strong economic benefits then making the intervention larger would make the economy stronger. In fact, if the economic returns are so strong then the projects could presumably be 10, 100, or 1,000 times bigger, and continue to provide economic return.
Instead, what these reports highlight is that knowledge exchange funding is a product of the wider economy. There is a natural limit to how much activity can take place as there comes a point where the economy is not large enough or dynamic enough to absorb the benefits of universities’ work. In fact, these reports indirectly demonstrate how economies get stuck into a death spiral. Productivity stalls which prevents the absorption of innovative products and services. Without innovative products and services the economy cannot become more productive. And so on.
The benefits these schemes are realising would suggest they are not close to meeting the capacity of the economy and could therefore be much larger. It is also a matter of purpose. The funds are designed on a premise that there is capacity to make use of university work. It is a much harder question to imagine how funding should be designed where it is necessary to restart a broken economy.
The impact of these funds is striking, the reports written about them are convincing, however they open a door to a wider question of whether knowledge exchange funding is big enough, well directed enough, or tooled properly, to fix the UK’s entrenched economic issues including its collapsed productivity.
Food insecurity is not just a growing issue at a societal level, it’s an urgent crisis for students at Australian universities.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
Today, the Renters’ Rights Bill will undergo its Second Reading in the House of Lords. This far-reaching Bill is long overdue. Once it becomes law, it will deliver a much-needed overhaul of private rented sector regulation in England.
With the Bill, the Labour Government has a huge opportunity to deliver a rental market that is fairer and improves housing quality for the millions of renters in the UK.
However, at present, the Government is blind to the woes of one particular group of renters: students.
Students risk being hit by a ‘double whammy’ of increased tuition fees and the financial impact the Renters’ Rights Bill will have, shortening student housing supply even further and making it more expensive.
The Bill’s passage through the Lords presents a vital opportunity to ensure the Bill delivers an overhaul of the private rented sector. As one of the most vulnerable groups of renters particularly affected by high costs of living, the legislation must consider students and the unique nature of the student private rented sector. The concerns about student welfare in the rental market appear to resonate with the wider public: New research commissioned by SAPRS (Student Accredited Private Rental Sector), a coalition of second- and third-year student accommodation providers across Britain, has found that a majority (66%) of the British public believe that the Government does not care about students.
They are an important group of voters, in particular for the Labour Party, and the Government risks alienating them. Students will remember, and Keir Starmer might receive payback at the next General Election’s polling station.
HEPI and higher education organisations like Universities UK have previously rightly warned the legislation threatens the availability, affordability, and quality of student housing as the sector is already at crisis point.
As part of the Bill, the Government plans to end fixed-term tenancy agreements (FTTAs) ignoring the special case that is student housing. Student housing relies on cyclical FTTAs that have successfully balanced student and landlord needs by aligning with university term times and ensuring landlords have security of tenure each year. By dismantling this model, the Bill risks reducing housing availability, creating uncertainty for students and disrupting the cyclical rental market.
There is an easy solution, and it is not too late for the Government to listen to the sector and students and to fix the Bill. On the issue of fixed-term tenancies, the Bill must create parity between the student private rental and the purpose-built sector – anything else risks exacerbating the existing crisis.
Our proposed SAPRS code of conduct would establish standards of conduct and practice for the management of the student private rental distinct from the purpose-built sector, aimed at creating a framework of standards to facilitate effective and fair treatment of students.
An exemption along these lines is already included in the Bill for the purpose-built sector; there is no clear reason why the same exemption should not apply to private rentals, and the Government has so far refused to spell out a convincing reason.
If the Bill is not changed, the Government will miss a vital opportunity to deliver a better deal for students – and risk punishing an important part of its electorate.
Approaching a critical vote on its accreditation status next month, Saint Augustine’s University has made controversial moves in recent months to stabilize its shaky financial position, but so far none have paid off, putting the beleaguered institution in a more precarious position.
First, the historically Black university in North Carolina took out a $7 million loan last fall that many critics have described as predatory given its 24 percent interest rate and 2 percent management fee. The university also put real estate up as collateral in case of a loan default.
Then, in November, SAU officials also struck a $70 million deal with 50 Plus 1 Sports, a fledgling Florida company, to lease its campus and develop university property for 99 years. The deal would have provided a much-needed financial lifeline for the cash-strapped university that needs to urgently fix its finances before the accreditation review. (The college was previously stripped of accreditation due to university financial and governance issues but appealed.)
But that lifeline is in legal limbo after the North Carolina attorney general declined to sign off on the deal Monday.
The North Carolina attorney general’s office, which reviewed the deal due to state law on the transfer of assets from a nonprofit, announced it would not approve the arrangement with 50 Plus 1 Sports as written due to a lack of “sufficient documentation to support the proposal” and concerns that the payout “is too low to justify transfer of the lease rights” for SAU’s campus, which is appraised at $198 million. The attorney general’s Office also expressed concerns about SAU’s “ability to continue to operate.”
Saint Augustine’s has faced rising pressures since December 2023 when it fired then-president Christine McPhail, who subsequently lodged a gender-based discrimination complaint against the board. That same week the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges announced it had voted to strip SAU’s accreditation due to board and finance issues.
(SAU lost an appeal to that decision but won a reprieve in court in July before SACSCOC voted again in December to strip accreditation. The accreditor will vote on SAU’s appeal next month.)
Since early 2024—under the guidance of interim president Marcus Burgess—SAU has navigated a series of challenges in a bid to stay afloat. In February, it was hit with a $7.9 million tax lien. That same month, local officials encouraged SAU to explore a merger with nearby Shaw University, another HBCU. Months later, SAU board chair Brian Boulware cast the proposal as an aggressive effort to ramrod a partnership. (Local officials have denied his account.) In May, a group called the Save SAU Coalition sued Boulware and other trustees, alleging malfeasance and self-dealing by the board.
That case was later dismissed due to a lack of standing.
Enrollment has also plummeted, falling from more than 1,100 students in fall 2022 to a head count of around 200 students last fall, according to recent estimates. SAU has also announced major staff reductions.
As its financial pressures added up, Saint Augustine’s borrowed $7 million from Gothic Ventures, an investment firm, and secured a $30 million line of credit. The deal, which came with a 24 percent interest rate and a 2 percent loan management fee, sparked alumni protests in the fall.
Mark DeFusco, a senior consultant with Higher Ed Consolidation Solutions and sector finance expert, told Inside Higher Ed the terms of the Gothic Ventures loan were “crazy” and “irresponsible.” DeFusco agreed with the description of the loan as “predatory.”
SAU officials have defended the agreement, writing that the deal is “crucial for maintaining educational services” and securing the loan contradicted “claims of irresponsibility in financial dealings” leveled by critics. SAU has cast criticism of the deal as a “smear campaign.”
Earlier this month, two local publications, INDY Week and The Assembly, reported that last fall SAU turned down a more favorable loan offer of $19.5 million with a 9 percent interest rate. That offer, from Self-Help Credit Union, stipulated that two board members, including Boulware, resign, and would have included purchasing the existing Gothic Ventures loan. The university balked at the attached conditions.
To DeFusco, the board resignations as part of the loan conditions were a reasonable request.
“There are provisions in leadership for all kinds of lending. And with all due respect, it was a wise provision, because you have a board that’s allowed [financial issues] to go on for several years now. This isn’t something new,” DeFusco said. “They haven’t broken even for at least five years from what I could see in their records, and their accrediting body was going to close them down, except for that arbitration. And now they’re about to close them down again.”
Continued financial struggles ultimately led SAU to a deal with 50 Plus 1 Sports, which describes itself on its website as a financing and development firm. That agreement, according to a university statement, would “generate a $70 million upfront investment” from the company.
But the North Carolina attorney general’s office shut down that proposed deal.
Beyond the lack of documentation on the proposal and the low payout, Assistant Attorney General Kunal Choksi also raised questions about the university’s due diligence of the deal.
“SAU’s board and trustees were obligated to perform due diligence on whether 50+ can meet its obligations under the transaction and has the experience to develop revenue-generating property on the leased land,” Choksi wrote in a letter shared with Inside Higher Ed.
Choksi added that the attorney general’s office had requested “sufficient proof that 50+ has the financial ability to comply with its obligations to SAU and avoid default with its financiers” and “details about similar deals 50+ has developed, including deals with other universities, or the company’s audited financial statements.” Choksi indicated in his letter that SAU had not yet provided those details on the proposal.
In a Tuesday statement, SAU officials said little about the concerns raised by the attorney general about the 50 Plus 1 Sports deal or its ability to operate. Instead, university officials took aim at Self-Help Credit Union.
SAU noted concerns “about the process that led to the recent rejection” of the agreement. Specifically, they pointed to a meeting between Marin Eakes of Self-Help Credit Union and alleged that the attorney general’s letter reflected comments made by Eakes in unspecified media coverage and alleged the 50 Plus 1 Sports proposal was shared without SAU’s consent.
SAU officials wrote in the statement that they “suspect that the Attorney General’s Office used Mr. Eakes’ counsel and input to subsequently influence their decision. Such interference by Self-Help raises significant concerns about fairness. It suggests their attempt to weaponize the NC Attorney General’s Office to obstruct the approval process for the 50 Plus 1 Sports deal.”
With the North Carolina attorney general’s office shutting down the 50 Plus 1 deal, SAU has little time to fix its finances ahead of a looming vote on its accreditation status in late February.
And questions about both the deal and the company linger.
Information on 50 Plus 1 Sports is sparse and it is unclear, as noted by the attorney general’s office, whether the nascent company has the resources to back the deal. Little is known about 50 Plus 1 Sports, which unsuccessfully big on a $800 million stadium development deal in St. Petersburg, Fla., in early 2023. The firm was not selected for the project amid questions from local officials about how it would finance the deal and a lack of experience as a lead developer.
In its St. Petersburg proposal, 50 Plus Sports listed a $1.4 billion deal to develop a sports and entertainment district for the University of New Orleans among its reference projects. However, a UNO spokesperson told Inside Higher Ed by email it is not “moving forward with the project.”
Monti Valrie, founder and CEO of 50 Plus 1 Sports, did not respond to a request for comment.
The attorney general’s office did leave the door open to reconsider the deal. But the university would have to provide more details to the office, including evidence that SAU conducted due diligence on 50 Plus 1 Sports and its finances.
SAU officials noted in their statement that “despite these challenges, SAU remains committed to working collaboratively with the Attorney General’s Office. We believe transparency and open dialogue are essential in securing the funding for our university’s sustainability and growth.”
But SAU is facing a ticking clock to get that information to the attorney general or rework the deal. University officials have said that the deal needed to close by Jan. 31. Otherwise, “SAU risks failing to demonstrate financial sustainability” before its appeal hearing next month, according to a university statement.
But DeFusco wonders if SAU’s finances are too far gone to fix.
“Their finances are so bad they may be criminal,” he said, pointing to payroll and tax issues. (The university also allegedly failed to maintain worker’s compensation for employees recently.)
As pressure mounts, DeFusco believes the board needs more scrutiny for SAU’s financial problems, arguing “they missed it for years” as the university slipped deeper into the red.
“Now the question is, is the board acting as a fiduciary?” DeFusco said.