Context:

Specialist courses in social professions have become expensive for single institutions to offer, and the availability of these important and valuable programmes has been in decline over the last decade despite a continuing need for specialist graduates, as attested by the relevant professional bodies, and by policy implementations (see Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, calls for Royal Commission into the Disability Services) in the areas where graduates from these courses might provide stronger leadership.

Key findings:

The key findings of this Fellowship programme were:

1. Sustained loss of degree diversity and availability: over the past seven years, the availability of specialist social gerontology and disability courses had declined. Youth work undergraduate student numbers have increased, but the specialist youth work degrees were still only available in public universities in two states (Victoria and WA).
2. Differences between disciplines: the effects were not the same across all specialist disciplines. In 2019, there was only one university offering specialist undergraduate degrees in disability (Flinders University); one offering a specialist major in social gerontology (Charles Sturt University); and four public universities were offering specialist undergraduate youth work degrees (Australian Catholic University, Edith Cowan University, RMIT University and Victoria University).
3. Role of professionalisation: the growth in youth work student numbers (and lack of decline in availability of degrees) was attributed to more advanced professionalization in the youth work discipline, compared with either social gerontology or disability.
4. Concern from professional associations: representatives from relevant professional associations who were interviewed were very concerned about the decline in availability of specialist degrees in disability and social gerontology, and concerned about the lack of availability of youth work degrees in most states and territories.
5. University awareness: there was awareness of the problem from staff and senior managers, and genuine concern. For course coordinators, the focus was on their own struggle to maintain the course within their institution.
6. No-one is monitoring the big picture: unlike special provisions made to monitor and protect low-availability foreign languages courses from closure, there is no similar provision for specialist social welfare courses. Even those teaching in these disciplines expressed surprise at the extent and rapidity of the decline in availability of specialist undergraduate disability and social gerontology courses across the university sector.
7. Models for collaboration: two models for collaboration were examined (formalised cross-institutional enrolment, and a Collaborative Teaching Centre model). Both have advantages and disadvantages. Formalised cross-institutional enrolment arrangements are simplest to implement but the establishment of Collaborative Teaching Centres (CTCs) would offer the most stable solution.
8. Barriers to collaboration: collaboration between institutions was impeded by an environment of fierce competition engendered by the change to demand-driven finding.
9. Competition and funding policy: unhelpful competition within and between institutions had been intensified by the transition from centrally planned university funding to demand-driven university funding, after which universities that previously collaborated became direct competitors.
10. Increased internal competition: coordinators of small courses reported unhelpful and unfair competition between courses within the same institution, where larger courses would use bigger marketing budgets to attract students away from small courses. This does not prioritise the students’ best interests, the needs of specialist professions or social need.
11. Diversion of teaching funding into research: diversion of undergraduate teaching funding to support research excellence (Kemp & Norton, 2014; Noonan, 2015), as a means of achieving higher ranking on university league table means courses that cover costs but are not highly profitable, have become vulnerable to being discontinued.
12. Wrong commonwealth government funding cluster (CGFC) classification: these courses (ASCED FoE Code 090505, 090507, 090509) along with social work and other welfare courses, are allocated to Commonwealth Government Funding Cluster 3b (behavioural science or social studies). Pedagogically they are unlike lecture-based courses in politics, policy studies, human geography or anthropology because of supervised practicum requirements. The pedagogy and costs of specialist social professions are more akin to allied health or clinical psychology in funding Cluster 5, (clinical psychology, allied health, foreign languages, visual and performing arts) (Department of Education and Training, 2019). Cluster 5 receives a higher level of government fee support than Cluster 3, and this affects the attractiveness to universities of offering these courses.
13. Indicators of continuing external need for specialisms: since the fellowship commenced, the need from stronger leadership in these specialist areas has become even more apparent (see for example, the Royal Commission into Aged Care and concerns expressed by the disability sector and users of disability services). All professions are also on the State Priority Occupation List (SPOL) in WA.
14. A variety of other specialist and emerging disciplines were facing similar challenges: these included careers (guidance) education; leadership and development training (for police and others); integrated palliative care; and permaculture.