The role and function of small VET providers

Description

The number and type of providers delivering vocational education and training (VET) in Australia is almost as varied as the types of students they serve and the training they deliver. Given the number of small VET providers in the system, we wanted to get a better understanding of the role and function of the small VET providers and how they meet the needs of their students.

Summary

About the research

The aim of this research was to gain a better understanding of the role and function of small providers in the Australian vocational education and training (VET) system in meeting the needs of learners. Small providers — those with low numbers of students — account for almost one-third of the total, thus justifying a closer look at this segment. In 2017 there were 1130 registered training organisations (RTOs) from a total of 3573 non-school RTOs with fewer than 100 students.

We categorised RTOs into three sizes: small providers (those with fewer than 100 students enrolled in VET); medium providers (with between 100 and 999 students); and large providers (with 1000 or more students). We selected providers that were in the same size category in 2015, 2016 and 2017. Schools were excluded from our analysis as they are RTOs in only some jurisdictions. Accordingly, the findings reflect VET delivered by non-school RTOs with a stable number of students in terms of their size category between 2015 and 2017. These stable small providers made up 24% of providers in the scope of this research but had fewer than 1% of all students in 2017.

Key messages

• Stable small providers play an important role in providing diversity in student choice. In every state and territory in 2017, all stable small providers combined delivered more national training package qualifications and nationally recognised accredited courses than any single stable large provider with a comparable number of enrolments.
• Stable small providers tend to deliver higher-level and more specialised programs than stable medium and large providers. A higher proportion of enrolments at stable small providers in 2017 were in Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) programs at certificate IV level and above. For example, in 2017, most enrolments in qualifications in the Funeral Services Training Package, the Diploma of Aviation (Instrument Rating) and the Advanced Diploma of Dance (Elite Performance) were with stable small providers.
• Stable small providers more often delivered highly specialised courses on a fee-for-service basis in areas where there is little or no government funding, such as the performing arts, theology, religious ministry and yoga. In many cases the providers themselves had applied to have them nationally recognised as accredited courses.
• Some stable small providers delivered highly specialised services for key equity groups. Students with a disability made up at least a quarter of students at one in 20 stable small providers (compared with one in 100 stable large providers). Similarly, Indigenous students made up at least a quarter of students at one in 20 stable small providers (compared with one in 100 stable large providers).
• Stable small providers are similar to stable medium and large providers in terms of their geographical reach, rates of graduate satisfaction, regulatory compliance, and the issues faced in reporting training data to the National VET Provider Collection.

Executive Summary

Given the number of smaller providers in the Australian vocational education and training (VET) system, this research aims to provide a better understanding of the role and function of these smaller providers in meeting the needs of learners.

We categorised registered training organisations (RTOs) into three sizes: small providers (those with fewer than 100 students enrolled in VET); medium providers (with between 100 and 999 students); and large providers (with 1000 or more students). We selected providers who remained in the same size category in 2015, 2016 and 2017. Schools were excluded from our analysis because they are RTOs in only some jurisdictions.

Accordingly, the findings reflect VET delivered by non-school RTOs with a stable number of students, in terms of their size category, between 2015 and 2017 (‘stable’ providers). These stable small providers made up 24% of providers within the scope of this research but had fewer than 1% of all students in 2017.

The analyses focused on training activity that occurred in 2017, which was the most recent data available and also ensured that students who were enrolled over multiple years were only counted once.

Key findings

Provider characteristics

In this section, we explored the general characteristics of stable small, medium and large providers. The key findings included:

• There were 518 providers in the small provider category across 2015, 2016 and 2017 (that is, stable small providers), making up 24% of stable providers over that period.
• Stable small providers had less than 1% of all students at stable providers in 2017. In contrast, while there was a similar proportion of stable large providers, they had 89% of all students at stable providers in 2017.
• Most stable small providers were private training providers. It was notable that 34% of stable enterprise providers were small.
• Stable small providers tended to have been registered for a shorter period of time than stable medium or large providers. Fifty per cent of stable small providers had been registered for nine years or fewer.

Training characteristics

In this section, we explored the types of training and specific courses that stable small providers were delivering and how this training was funded. The key findings included:

• A higher proportion of program enrolments in nationally recognised programs at stable small providers were in courses at certificate IV level and above in 2017, compared with stable medium and large providers.
• In 2017, there were 45 national training package qualifications across 21 training package groups where stable small providers had more enrolments than stable medium or large providers. These qualifications were in areas such as funeral services, aviation, and disability access consulting.
• The range of national training package qualifications and nationally recognised accredited courses delivered by all stable small providers combined was greater than any single stable larger provider with a similar number of program enrolments in 2017. This indicates that stable small providers were contributing to the diversity of choices available to students within the system.
• Stable small providers were delivering niche nationally recognised accredited courses in areas such as dancing, acting, theology, religious ministry and yoga in 2017.
• Within nationally recognised programs, stable small providers had relatively more students undertaking fee-for-service training than stable medium and large providers in 2017. Sixty-four per cent of stable small providers had only fee-for-service students in 2017.

Student characteristics and outcomes

We focused on students with a disability and Indigenous students, the reason being that, while stable small providers overall had fewer of these students than stable large providers, they made up a higher percentage of students at stable small providers in 2017. The key findings included:

• A few stable small providers had a relatively higher percentage of students with a disability or Indigenous students in 2017, indicating that they may be delivering very specialised and targeted services to those students.
• Most of the training by students with a disability at stable small providers was on a fee-for-service basis, in contrast to stable medium and large providers.
• Across all provider size categories, training undertaken by Indigenous students was mostly government-funded. At stable small providers much of this government-funded training was in courses in community services, Indigenous studies and performing arts.
• There were no substantial differences between the employment, further study or satisfaction outcomes for graduates across all three size categories.

Geographic characteristics

In this section, we investigated whether there were any differences in the geographic areas that stable small providers serviced compared with other stable providers. The key findings included:

• While slightly more of their students resided in remote or very remote regions than stable medium and large providers, the majority of students at stable small providers resided in major cities in 2017 (similar to other stable providers).
• There were more students enrolled at stable medium or large providers than stable small providers across almost all regions across Australia in 2017.
• In 2017, the geographical reach of all stable small providers combined was comparable with the reach of single stable large providers, when measured by the number of regions they collectively covered.
• In regional and remote areas and in major cities, stable small providers delivered relatively fewer subject enrolments through electronic media than stable large providers in 2017. The greater use of electronic media may be helping large providers to reach students in regional and remote areas.

Regulatory and data-reporting comparisons

We analysed audit data from 2016—17 on providers registered with the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) to explore whether these stable small providers were experiencing any difficulties in meeting their regulatory requirements. The key findings included:

• Stable small providers were compliant slightly more often than stable medium and stable large providers, and when they were non-compliant it was more often a minor issue.
• Stable small providers appeared to have less difficulties maintaining their ongoing registration, but faced more difficulties adding new programs or subjects to their registered scope of delivery.

To get a sense of the operational challenges that stable small providers may face in meeting their data-reporting requirements, we looked at the issues they had experienced with reporting their training activity to the National VET Provider Collection in 2017. Examining calls and emails to NCVER’s Client Support service, we investigated whether stable small providers required support more often than stable medium and large providers. The key findings included:

• Stable small providers made fewer requests for help than would be expected (if requests were evenly distributed). When they did make a request, it was often regarding similar issues to stable medium and large providers.
• The data indicate that stable small providers were not having any greater operational difficulties than stable medium and large providers in meeting their data-reporting requirements.