SA universities saw a remarkable increase in philanthropic income in 2020, valued at R2.31 bn ,nearly double 2019’s funding.
When Sector Education and Training Authority (Seta) income is included, the total was R2.66bn. This is an encouraging finding of the Annual Survey of Philanthropy in Higher Education (ASPIHE).
First launched in 2013, the research is now in its eighth edition, and 40%-50% of the 26 universities in the higher education system took part. The latest study is based on philanthropic funding during 2020, the year of the global Covid-19 pandemic.
Respondents included the more “traditional”, historically advantaged, research intensive universities that receive the bulk of support, and “non-traditional”, historically disadvantaged universities, which are more teaching-oriented, as in universities of technology.
University funding was already under pressure before the pandemic, with institutions operating in environments of heightened fiscal austerity, both nationally and globally. In addition to government subsidies and tuition fees, “third stream” income, from sources such as donations, industry, partnerships, contract research, consulting services and short courses, became extremely significant.
Donors, either individuals or organisations which generously gave, must be commended. While the total number of donors was slightly lower than the previous year (2019), income increased well beyond previous years. Data shows an equal distribution of income generated from national and international sources.
This trend of national giving, which surfaced in 2019, was proportionately higher in 2020. It suggests high levels of civic responsibility by South Africans and is highly commendable.
Data from 2020 also shows a decline in income from international trusts and foundations. In accounting for this decline, it would be remiss not to mention that international philanthropic support has favoured the historically advantaged type of university. The hard question here is whether this is not in effect reproducing past discriminatory legacy practices.
The data reveal that 60% of universities experienced donor giving during the year of the pandemic as positive. This was for student learning technologies, bursaries and medical-related research.
On the flip side, though, some experienced difficulties. “Non-traditional” universities have generally been more successful at attracting Seta funding. However, the latest research revealed that the top earners in 2020 were “traditional” universities, a reversal from the previous year.
A key underlying aspect, however, is a legacy framework of structural inequality that marks the overall system. Despite a restructuring of the system after 2004, which included a reduction in the size of the landscape through a merger process that sought to cut through the systemic inequities, complex legacy factors remain.
For 2020, the difference in income was R2.19 bn to historically advantaged institutions and R121m to historically disadvantaged ones. The stark inequality in the donor income totals has been persistent and the gap is growing.
Perhaps international philanthropy might consider collaborative-joint strategies aimed at greater, collective social impact. Understanding domestic philanthropy could serve as a basis for further discussion about the most effective way to stimulate and incentivise national giving.
■ Domingo is an acting executive director at Inyathelo
FERYAL DOMINGO | Donations to universities grow but legacy of inequality persists
Image: 123RF
SA universities saw a remarkable increase in philanthropic income in 2020, valued at R2.31 bn ,nearly double 2019’s funding.
When Sector Education and Training Authority (Seta) income is included, the total was R2.66bn. This is an encouraging finding of the Annual Survey of Philanthropy in Higher Education (ASPIHE).
First launched in 2013, the research is now in its eighth edition, and 40%-50% of the 26 universities in the higher education system took part. The latest study is based on philanthropic funding during 2020, the year of the global Covid-19 pandemic.
Respondents included the more “traditional”, historically advantaged, research intensive universities that receive the bulk of support, and “non-traditional”, historically disadvantaged universities, which are more teaching-oriented, as in universities of technology.
University funding was already under pressure before the pandemic, with institutions operating in environments of heightened fiscal austerity, both nationally and globally. In addition to government subsidies and tuition fees, “third stream” income, from sources such as donations, industry, partnerships, contract research, consulting services and short courses, became extremely significant.
Donors, either individuals or organisations which generously gave, must be commended. While the total number of donors was slightly lower than the previous year (2019), income increased well beyond previous years. Data shows an equal distribution of income generated from national and international sources.
This trend of national giving, which surfaced in 2019, was proportionately higher in 2020. It suggests high levels of civic responsibility by South Africans and is highly commendable.
Data from 2020 also shows a decline in income from international trusts and foundations. In accounting for this decline, it would be remiss not to mention that international philanthropic support has favoured the historically advantaged type of university. The hard question here is whether this is not in effect reproducing past discriminatory legacy practices.
The data reveal that 60% of universities experienced donor giving during the year of the pandemic as positive. This was for student learning technologies, bursaries and medical-related research.
On the flip side, though, some experienced difficulties. “Non-traditional” universities have generally been more successful at attracting Seta funding. However, the latest research revealed that the top earners in 2020 were “traditional” universities, a reversal from the previous year.
A key underlying aspect, however, is a legacy framework of structural inequality that marks the overall system. Despite a restructuring of the system after 2004, which included a reduction in the size of the landscape through a merger process that sought to cut through the systemic inequities, complex legacy factors remain.
For 2020, the difference in income was R2.19 bn to historically advantaged institutions and R121m to historically disadvantaged ones. The stark inequality in the donor income totals has been persistent and the gap is growing.
Perhaps international philanthropy might consider collaborative-joint strategies aimed at greater, collective social impact. Understanding domestic philanthropy could serve as a basis for further discussion about the most effective way to stimulate and incentivise national giving.
■ Domingo is an acting executive director at Inyathelo
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending
Related articles
Latest Videos