Towards the point of return: Maximising students’ uptake of university places following deferral and leave. Report for the Department of Education, Skills and Employment. Melbourne: Centre for Higher Education Equity and Diversity Research, La Trobe University.

Full text

FINAL REPORT
March 2022
Towards the point of return:
Maximising students’ uptake of university
places following deferral and leave

Towards the point of return
1
Towards the point of return: Maximising students’ uptake of university places following deferral and
leave is published by La Trobe University.
La Trobe University
Melbourne Victoria 3086
Australia
Tel: +613 9479 1423
Web: latrobe.edu.au
May 2022
© La Trobe University 2022
Written by Professor Andrew Harvey, Michael Luckman, Yuan Gao, Matthias Kubler, A/Professor
Wojtek Tomaszewski, Naomi Dempsey, Professor Marcia Devlin, Elizabeth Cook, Professor Braden
Hill, Professor Angela Hill, Professor Sue Shore, Alison Reedy and Professor Kathryn Holmes
To cite this report: Harvey, A., Luckman, M., Gao, Y., Kubler, M., Tomaszewski, W., Dempsey, N.,
Devlin, M., Cook, E.J., Hill, B., Hill, A., Shore, S., Reedy, A., & Holmes, K. (2022). Towards the point
of return: Maximising students’ uptake of university places following deferral and leave. Report for
the Department of Education, Skills and Employment. Melbourne: Centre for Higher Education
Equity and Diversity Research, La Trobe University.

Towards the point of return
2
Acknowledgements
This project was funded by the Australian Government Department of Education, Skills and
Employment through National Priorities Pool Program (NPPP).
The authors would like to thank the Department of Education, Skills and Employment project team,
Amanda Franzi, Laura Barwick, Elouise Arch and Nathan Cassidy for their valuable support and
feedback during the project.
The work in this report depended on large datasets from the Higher Education Information
Management System (HEIMS), and the authors would like to thank Department of Education, Skills
and Employment staff who advised on the specifications of the data, and compiled and made
available various datasets of some complexity, in particular: Wayne Shippley, Ben McBrien and Ravi
Ravindran. We would also like to thank Luke Richardson for his specialist feedback on the technical
appendix to this research report.
Finally, we thank Beni Cakitaki, Hannah Beattie and Maria Rosales of the Centre for Higher
Education Equity and Diversity Research (CHEEDR) for their efforts in helping to pull together the
final report.

Towards the point of return
3
Table of contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5
CONTEXT AND REPORT STRUCTURE 8
RECOMMENDATIONS 10
Universities 10
Government 11
KEY TERMS 12
LITERATURE REVIEW 13
Major findings 13
Recommendations 13
The growth of higher education and non-linear pathways 14
Reasons for taking an intermission 17
Factors that influence intermission 21
Re-enrolment after intermission 23
ANALYSIS OF STUDENT ENROLMENT DATA 25
Major findings 25
Recommendations 25
Introduction 26
Methodology 27
Analysis of deferral rates 30
Deferral over time 32
Factors predicting return after deferral 34
Leaving after commencement 36
Returning to study after leave 37
SURVEY OF INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSES TO LEAVE-TAKING 39
Major findings 39
Recommendations 39
Introduction 39
Methodology 40
Strategic environment and governance 41
Interventions 43
SENIOR STAFF INTERVIEWS 49
Major findings 49
Recommendations 49
Methodology 50
Leadership and governance 51
Policy and procedure 52
Intervention and engagement strategies 54
Evidence of effectiveness 62
Constraints and challenges 63
PARTNER INSTITUTION CASE STUDIES 67

Towards the point of return
4
Major findings 67
Recommendations 68
Introduction 68
University A case study 68
University B case study 78
University C case study 82
University D case study 89
University E case study 97
REFERENCES 107
APPENDIX 1: TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO THE “TOWARDS THE POINT OF RETURN” REPORT. 118
APPENDIX 2: DEFERRAL PROJECT STAFF SURVEY 119
APPENDIX 3: INTERVIEW GUIDES FOR SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS WITH UNIVERSITY STAFF 131
List of figures
Figure 1: Deferral rates over time for all students, Indigenous students, low SES students and regional students. 15
Figure 2: Raw and regression adjusted deferral rates by student SES, 2018. 31
Figure 3: Odds ratios for selected factors found to be significantly related to student deferral. 32
Figure 4: Unadjusted deferral rates by SES, 2011 to 2018. 33
Figure 5: Odds ratios for selected factors significantly associated with the likelihood of a student returning to study after a
deferral. 35
Figure 6: Odds ratios for selected student characteristics associated with the likelihood of a student leaving the university
early. 36
Figure 7: Odds ratio of selected factors significantly related to the likelihood of returning to study after a break. 38
Figure 8: To what extent is the conversion of deferrers or leave takers a priority for your institution? 41
Figure 9: To what extent do you feel policies and procedures regarding deferral and leave of absence respectively are
visible at your institution? 43
Figure 10: Does your institution have any interventions in place to encourage deferrers and/or leave takers to return to
study? 44
Figure 11: To what extent do you agree with the following statements regarding the overall effectiveness of your
institutional initiatives to encourage the conversion of deferrers and leave takers? 46
Figure 12: What constraints, if any, exist with regard to effectively supporting deferrers and/or leave takers to return to
study? 47
Figure 13: Numbers of domestic Bachelors in each ‘reason’ category and whether they returned 85
Figure 14: Current enrolment status of students who took a leave of absence between 2014-2019 100
List of tables
Table 1: List of variables used in the analysis of HEIMS data. 29

Towards the point of return
5
Executive summary
Deferral and leave-taking behaviour substantially affects enrolment and retention rates across
Australian universities. Almost ten per cent of commencing students defer their university offer every
year, while over 20 per cent of continuing students take leave from their university within three years
of commencing a Bachelor degree. Our research confirms that around one third of deferring
students do not return to the university sector. Many more return to the sector but enrol in a different
course or university from which they deferred. More worryingly, less than a third of continuing
students who take leave subsequently return to study within the next two years. Universities have
become more flexible in enabling students to leave, but arguably not as flexible and motivated to
accommodate their return.
An equity lens can be applied to these national figures. Under-represented students, including those
from low socio-economic status (SES) backgrounds, are generally thought to be more likely to defer
and to take leave. Previous research suggests that they are also less likely to return to study from
that leave, creating a compound effect that contributes to lower degree completion rates (Harvey,
Szalkowicz, & Luckman, 2017). Until this report, there had been little national data analysis of the
many factors correlated with leave-taking and returning to study.
Our research reveals a complex equity picture. Data analysis confirms that low socio-economic
status, in itself, is not a predictor of deferral. In fact, after controlling for various geo-demographic
and behavioural factors, we find that low SES students are actually less likely to defer than other
students. Nonetheless, low SES students are less likely to return to higher education after a deferral,
suggesting deferral is still a risk for access to university. Equally, once students have commenced a
qualification, low socio-economic status is a risk factor both for taking leave and for not returning to
study after leave.
Regionality was found to be the most highly correlated risk factor for deferral in our study, with a
student from a regional area much more likely to defer than a metropolitan student. While regional
students are somewhat more likely than metropolitan students to take up a university place after
deferring, the collective result is still a substantial gap in enrolments. For continuing students,
regionality was associated with a slightly greater likelihood of leaving, and of not returning from
leave.
Indigenous students are less likely than non-Indigenous students to defer a university offer, owing
mainly to their high likelihood of mature aged status. However, Indigenous students who do defer an
offer are less likely to return than non-Indigenous deferrers. After commencement, our findings
reflect the broader literature, which highlights that Indigenous students are at a much higher risk
than other students of leaving university early, and also of not returning to study from a period of
leave. Based on the relatively high sectoral rates of deferral, leave, and non-return to study, we
recommend greater attention to these behaviours within institutional retention strategies. We also
advocate Government adoption of recommendations contained within the Napthine and Halsey
reviews, particularly around expanding eligibility of Youth Allowance, in order to increase the number
of regional students able to attend university without deferring. Equally, we recommend a continuing
Government focus on low SES students, and the impact of financial disadvantage on leave-taking

Towards the point of return
6
and non-return. Relatedly, we suggest a specific focus on deferral and leave-taking within
institutional Indigenous strategies. In addition to financial and health support, universities need to
explore the effects of campus climate, feelings of belonging, unconscious bias, and discrimination
around leave-taking behaviour among regional, low SES, Indigenous, and other student groups.
More generally, we found that low prior achievement, age, course preference, part-time status and
online enrolment are often closely correlated with both deferral and leave-taking, and with the
subsequent likelihood of returning to higher education. In particular, data confirm the importance of
educational achievement to patterns of leave and return. Our findings lead to recommendations for
more sophisticated institutional approaches and analytics, which can address the root causes of
leave-taking and reluctance to return.
In conjunction with our analysis of Higher Education Information Management System (HEIMS)
data, we conducted extensive qualitative research to explore the perspectives of staff and students,
and to understand how universities are managing the expansion of non-linear pathways. We
surveyed and interviewed senior staff at a range of institutions across the country and developed in-
depth case studies of five diverse universities that explored governance, strategies and stakeholder
perspectives around leave-taking. Our research revealed a sector in transition. Many universities are
strengthening their approaches to supporting students on leave and those who are returning to
study. New approaches are being driven by a range of factors, including: comparative retention
rates being publicised to prospective students through the Quality Indicators for Learning and
Teaching (QILT); a constrained financial environment, reflected in the reintroduction of funding caps
for Commonwealth Supported Places (CSPs) in 2017 and relatively flat domestic demand and
population growth; the introduction of performance-based funding, to which retention rates are
central; student choice, with a desire for multiple entry and exit options to study; and new data
capabilities to track deferral, leave-taking and return to study behaviours.
Despite these institutional approaches, we found a need for further action across the student life
cycle. At the pre-departure stage, we advocate specific course, financial, and academic advising
around deferral processes and implications, including within secondary school outreach. Our data
analysis confirms, for example, that deferral often results from receiving a low course preference
and/or relatively low prior achievement. In such cases, it is in the interests of both the student and
the university to explore alternative courses, pathways and options for engagement. More broadly,
many universities are adopting a range of well-documented orientation, transition and first year
activities to build a sense of belonging and reduce the likelihood of students taking leave.
Further efforts are also being developed to engage students who are on deferment or leave. We
found that communication strategies are growing and becoming increasingly personalised, designed
to foster senses of belonging, maintain connection with the institution, and encourage timely return.
These strategies are encouraging, particularly given our previous research highlighting that students
who have left or withdrawn from a university often feel marginalised and/or stigmatised (Harvey et
al., 2017). Nevertheless, most institutional staff confirmed a need to improve their current evidence
base, for example, by better capturing the stated reasons for leave and related student-level data.
We recommend development of tailored interventions based on robust evidence, and subsequently
evaluated by changes in return to study patterns, student satisfaction and degree completion rates.
Students who leave for academic reasons, for example, could be specifically informed of academic

Towards the point of return
7
support, bridging opportunities and pathways to alternative degrees. A lighter touch could be
adopted for students who leave for travel reasons and who are statistically likely to return to study.
Increased transition support is also required for students who have returned to study from a period
of leave. These students have often lost contact with their initial cohort and subsequently may face
challenges in readjusting to university study, course requirements and institutional environments.
While we found some evidence of new approaches being adopted, we recommend broader
institutional reform to support re-orientation, including the establishment of peer mentoring
programs. At Government level, we recommend more detailed reporting of leave-taking and return
to study patterns, consistent with reporting practice in the United Kingdom. The relatively high rates
of churn both within and between institutions indicates that student recruitment is a long game, and
we found some evidence of students taking multiple periods of leave, or ‘stop-outs’, over time.
Capturing these nuances in reported data would assist institutions to refine their strategies.
We also found a need to position students as central to the development of deferral, leave and re-
engagement strategies. From the student perspective, the processes around deferral and leave-
taking were generally clear and visible, but there was scope to improve institutional support at each
stage of the life cycle. The students we interviewed, most of whom had themselves returned to study
after a period of leave, advocated: increased advice to students contemplating deferral or leave;
better communication with students during their period of leave; and greater support for those
returning from leave. In addition to these specific recommendations, we also suggest the active
involvement of students and elevation of the student voice in institutional strategy design.
At a policy level, we found evidence that official definitions of retention and attrition may bely the
reality of relative student mobility. We found differing institutional definitions and terminology around
leave of absence and varying periods of leave granted by different institutions. Relatedly, HEIMS
data do not allow for a distinction between students who are on approved leave as opposed to those
who have withdrawn. As a consequence, large numbers of students on approved leave are
classified as attrition each year. Further work is required to document course and institutional
mobility at more granular levels. Such work will be increasingly important as retention becomes a
tenet of performance-based funding and the job-ready graduate reforms.
Finally, it should be noted that our research was conducted before the onset of the COVID-19
pandemic. Clearly, universities have been extremely constrained financially by the pandemic,
particularly by the unprecedented decline in international student revenue. Among many other
priorities, the sector will need to intensify efforts to retain students, particularly those enrolled online.
Our research suggests that such efforts could be guided by better capture and use of data, inclusion
of the student voice, tailored interventions, and an overarching commitment to student equity.
Through these approaches, even in a time of crisis, universities and governments can continue to
support non-linear pathways while simultaneously improving retention and completion rates.

Towards the point of return
8
Context and report structure
Commissioned by the Department of Education, Skills and Employment (DESE) and funded through
the Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program’s National Priorities Pool, our research
sought to strengthen the evidence on the causes of deferral and leave, particularly among low SES
students, and to identify strategies by which universities can promote return to study. The project
was led by La Trobe University in partnership with the University of Queensland, Edith Cowan
University, Victoria University, Charles Darwin University and Western Sydney University.
The project’s Chief Investigators included:
▪ Professor Andrew Harvey, Griffith University (formerly La Trobe University);
▪ Associate Professor Wojtek Tomaszewski, University of Queensland;
▪ Professor Angela Hill, Edith Cowan University;
▪ Professor Braden Hill, Edith Cowan University;
▪ Professor Marcia Devlin, Victoria University;
▪ Naomi Dempsey, Victoria University;
▪ Professor Sue Shore, Charles Darwin University;
▪ Professor Kathryn Holmes, Western Sydney University.
We begin the report with a review of national and international literature around deferral and leave,
with a particular focus on under-represented students within the six identified equity groups in
Australian higher education: those from low socio-economic status (SES) backgrounds; those from
non-English speaking backgrounds; Indigenous people; those with a disability; people from regional
and rural areas; and women in non-traditional study areas. Existing research suggests that deferral
and leave-taking behaviour has increased following the mass expansion of higher education,
technological advances and the rise in participation by under-represented students. Despite the
growth of leave-taking and non-linear student pathways through university, we find a paucity of
evidence around return to study and little national analysis of related higher education data.
Our next section involves a comprehensive data analysis of deferral and leave behaviour in
Australia, based on three datasets sourced through the DESE. We have included the full
quantitative research in an appended technical report. While initial analysis was focussed on low
SES students, our research quickly revealed that low SES in itself was not a predictor of deferral,
and only moderately linked to taking leave. In fact, when controlling for other factors, low SES
students were significantly less likely to defer compared to high SES students. This important finding
contributes to an ongoing set of assumptions and narrative around socio-economic status and
educational achievement.
For a given ATAR, low SES students typically outperform high SES students, are less likely to take
leave and are more likely to be retained (Harvey & Burnheim, 2013; Messinis & Sheehan, 2015).
The correlation between low SES and relatively low prior educational achievement has led to many

Towards the point of return
9
misdiagnosed problems, and to a deficit narrative that overlooks the perseverance, dedication and
other strengths that consistently enable low SES students to outperform other students. In this
context, reducing deferral and leave relies on addressing the primary factors that are commonly
correlated with low SES, such as rurality and lower prior achievement, more than the condition of
being from a low SES background itself.
In the data analysis we also track deferral levels over time and quantify the effect of major predictors
of leave, including age, part-time study, parental education and external (online) enrolment. We
similarly analyse the factors related to return to study. Notably, we find that nearly two thirds of
commencing students return to the sector following deferral, but less than one third of continuing
students return to the sector following a leave of absence.
We then conducted surveys with senior staff across fifteen universities to understand governance,
strategies and perspectives on deferral and leave across the sector. Respondents were asked about
their institutional processes for managing leave, the perceived visibility of these processes to
students, their views on student equity and any groups of institutional focus, and the perceived
effectiveness of strategies.
Following these surveys, we conducted more intensive interviews with senior staff across five
diverse institutions. These interviews enabled us to explore some of the issues raised within the
survey, and to examine whether and why universities were prioritising leave and deferral within their
strategies. We also explored how universities were coordinating strategies for deferral and leave
across central and academic areas, and attempting to reduce leave-taking through curriculum and
pedagogy. For example, we investigated how institutions were building a sense of belonging through
orientation and transition initiatives and using data analysis to identify attrition risk and to tailor
policies to different student groups.
In our final qualitative research phase, we conducted in-depth case studies across five diverse
Australian universities. In these case studies we sought the voices of administrators, academics,
frontline staff and, particularly, students, many of whom had returned to study from a period of leave.
The case studies explore strategies to promote return to study from multiple perspectives and
provide insights into the complexity of institutional structures and processes. The studies also
highlight the innovative ways in which data and evidence are being used to tailor approaches to
different student groups and the increasingly diverse nature of curriculum models. Growing
institutional diversity and student mobility suggests a need to reconsider official definitions of leave,
retention and attrition and to position students more centrally in developing university strategies.

Towards the point of return
10
Recommendations
UNIVERSITIES
Noting the research that much leave-taking is inelastic and beyond institutional control, we make the
following recommendations.
1. That deferral, leave-taking and return to study be specifically addressed in each institutional
retention strategy, which the Higher Education Standards Panel has recommended all
institutions adopt.
2. That universities explicitly support non-linear student pathways, and seek to normalise leave-
taking within the student life cycle.
3. That universities undertake further research on the causes of leave-taking and, particularly,
the factors that contribute to returning to study from leave.
4. That universities develop strategies to address the high rates of deferral by regional
students, including outreach advice and financial, travel, and accommodation support.
5. That universities develop explicit strategies to address high rates of leave-taking (over 20 per
cent) and relatively low rates of return to study from leave (28 per cent within two years),
focussing on the major predictive factors of leave-taking (prior achievement, age, part-time
study, parental education, and online enrolment).
6. Within these strategies, that universities also include a particular focus on low SES and
Indigenous students, both of whom are more likely to leave and less likely to return to study
from leave than other students.
7. That universities develop tailored return to study communications that are informed by data
at student level, including equity group status.
8. That universities invest in data systems and analytics to provide timely information on
deferral, leave-taking and return to study behaviours, which can in turn inform
communication and intervention strategies.
9. That universities embed the principles of evidence-based practice and thorough program
evaluation within all student retention and success programs.
10. That universities develop flexible course structures and cross-institutional cooperation to
minimise leave-taking and maximise the potential for students to return to study from leave.
11. That universities provide academic and course advice to prospective students considering
deferral, including within secondary school outreach programs.
12. That universities focus on first year transition strategies to increase senses of belonging and
to reduce leave-taking behaviour.

Towards the point of return
11
13. That universities elevate the student voice in developing strategies to minimise withdrawal,
and to increase the rates of return to study from leave.
14. That universities provide more active outreach to students on periods of leave or deferral,
including tailored advice around course choice and transfer options, financial assistance, and
health and support services.
15. That universities develop re-orientation strategies for students returning to study from leave,
such as peer ‘buddy’ systems and academic support.
16. That universities include in their Indigenous strategies specific initiatives to address the high
rates of leave and non-return of Indigenous students. Such strategies could consider and
monitor the impact of unconscious bias, racism, financial disadvantage, and the curriculum
on Indigenous leave-taking and return to study behaviour.
GOVERNMENT
17. That the Australian Government create and report an additional student
achievement/success measure that monitors the proportion of students who return to study
after a period of absence. A similar statistic is currently reported by the UK’s Higher
Education Statistics Agency (HESA).
18. That the Australian Government adopt the recommendations of Halsey and Napthine
reviews to increase the capacity of regional students to attend university without the need to
defer.
19. That the Australian Government commission further research into student income support,
including reviewing any changes introduced as a result of the Halsey and Napthine reviews.
The research could include a review of the dependent and independent eligibility criteria and
the impact of student income support on deferral, course choice and subsequent course
completion.
20. That the Australian Government consider additional validations/verification of Applications
and Offers data within HEIMS to ensure accurate national level data on deferral is being
captured.

Towards the point of return
12
Key terms
Absent without leave (AWOL): when a student fails to enrol for a subsequent study period but fails
to officially withdraw or have an approved leave of absence. Institutions know relatively little about
this cohort because there is no opportunity to collect information about the reasons why they
disengaged from study.
Defer, Deferring and Deferral: refers to the specific situation when a prospective student makes an
application to commence a university degree, receives an offer but elects to delay their
commencement to a future study period. Deferrals are generally recorded and reported to
government (although not always).
Gap year: refers to a more general trend for students to take a break between completing
secondary school and commencing higher education. This can include students who have deferred
but it could also include students who intend to commence a higher education course but are yet to
apply or those who rejected an offer.
Intermission: see leave-taking
Leave-taking: a general phenomenon where a student takes a temporary break from their studies
after commencement. This can include official periods of approved leave, but may also include
students who officially withdraw or who are absent without leave. Referred to as “stop-out” in the US
literature.
Leave of absence: a break from studies for a defined period that is officially approved by an
institution for a student who has commenced their studies. Can also be referred to as: suspension of
studies, leave and program leave.
Under-represented students: an umbrella term is used to describe a wide variety of student
cohorts who are underrepresented in higher education. It includes the official “Fair Chance for All”
equity cohorts but also unofficial equity cohorts such as first in family, young people who have left
out of home care, refugees.
Withdrawal: when a student follows the official process for withdrawing from study. These students
are usually easily identified within student information systems and institutions usually record
rudimentary data regarding the reason for withdrawal.

Towards the point of return
13
Literature review
MAJOR FINDINGS
▪ Massification and widening participation have led to more students taking leave and
pursuing non-linear pathways through university. Rates of deferral by commencing
students and leave-taking (intermission/stop-out) by continuing students have increased
in recent decades.
▪ Under-represented students are more likely than other students to take leave and less
likely to return to study from leave.
▪ Causes of deferral and leave include educational, financial, geographic and personal
reasons, and are typically multi-factorial. Much leave-taking is inelastic and beyond
institutional control.
▪ Analysis of deferral and intermission behaviour at the national level remains limited and
there is little research on which students return to study from leave, and why.
RECOMMENDATIONS
For universities
▪ That deferral, leave-taking and return to study be specifically addressed in institutional
retention strategies, which the Higher Education Standards Panel has recommended all
institutions adopt
▪ That universities explicitly support non-linear pathways, and seek to normalise leave-
taking within the student life cycle
▪ That universities undertake further research on the causes of leave-taking and,
particularly, the causes of returning to study from leave.
For governments
▪ That the Australian Government create and report an additional student
achievement/success measure which reports the proportion of students who return to
study after a period of absence. A similar statistic is currently reported by the UK’s
Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA).
▪ That the Australian Government adopt the recommendations of Halsey and Napthine
reviews to increase the capacity of regional students to attend university without the
need to defer.

Towards the point of return
14
THE GROWTH OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND NON-LINEAR PATHWAYS
In this section we explore the massification of higher education (Trow, 2007), including the growth of
non-traditional students and non-linear pathways. Historically, ‘traditional’ university students were
perceived to be school leavers from highly selective schools, representing a small and relatively
privileged societal minority. From the late 1980s, in particular under the creation of the Unified
National System and the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS), a rise in non-traditional
student enrolments contributed to rapid sectoral growth (Dawkins, 1988). These new groups
included mature aged students of 21 years and above, regional and rural students, students from
low SES backgrounds, new migrants, carers, parents and others who had previously lacked access
to higher education (Harvey, Burnheim, & Brett, 2016). Widening participation, alongside expansive
technological change, led to many students seeking non-traditional and non-linear pathways through
university. With students increasingly desiring intermissions before and during their courses,
institutions needed to balance student demands for flexibility with institutional demands for timely
completions and revenue. We also address here the existing research on students from equity
groups withdrawing more often and being less likely than other students to return to study after they
withdraw.
Non-linear pathways through university are now common, with many students ‘stopping out’ and
withdrawing from their study at various intervals. As Tinto (1993, p. 27) acknowledged, ‘the
odysseys many individuals take to degree completion are long drawn out affairs with many
intermediate stops’. Variable patterns of enrolment flow partly from the massification of higher
education participation since the closing decades of the 20th Century, which encouraged
universities to recruit a considerable number of students from non-traditional backgrounds (Gaële,
2006). Although the expansion in enrolments has been driven largely by economic priorities, linked
to technological change, globalisation and increased international competition, it has also led to a
broadening of eligibility for higher education (Clancy & Goastellec, 2007; Epstein, 1995). In
response to the diversification of student populations, universities have offered more flexible
academic provisions, such as modularisation and credit transfer (Morley, 1997). Similarly,
universities have adapted to student preferences by developing deferral and leave of absence
processes that enable students to move in and out of their studies over time.
In Australia, the needs of a rapidly changing workforce and escalating demand for highly skilled
labour resulted in soaring higher education participation between the mid-1990s and the late 2010s
(Norton & Cherastidtham, 2018). From 2008 to 2017, as a result of the Australian Government’s
adoption of reforms proposed within the Bradley Report (Bradley, Noonan, Nugent, & Scales, 2008),
funding caps on domestic Bachelor degree student numbers were eased and then abolished,
enabling universities to enrol unlimited numbers of undergraduate students in most disciplines and
receive funding for each additional place.
The resultant surge in provision of places drove higher education participation for 19-year-olds up 10
percentage points, to 42 per cent overall (Norton & Cherastidtham, 2018). Overall expansion of the
system was accompanied by a fund to ensure access and success for students of low SES
backgrounds. Establishment of the Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program
(HEPPP) supported the twin Government targets of expansion and equity as outlined in the Bradley
Report (Bradley et al., 2008).

Towards the point of return
15
One manifestation of new enrolment patterns is the increasing prevalence among tertiary students in
Australia and globally to take an intermission during their study (Jones, 2004; Heath, 2007; Stehlik,
2010; Lumsden & Stanwick, 2012; Curtis, 2014). Unlike a linear pathway, more university students
are choosing to arrange their study flexibly to accommodate changing needs and preferences.
Intermission can take place at different stages of tertiary study, typically either before the student
officially commences their course or between university semesters. Students who decide to take a
break before transitioning from high school to university can defer their university offer. Others who
would like to take leave during their university years can take a leave of absence, be absent without
leave, discontinue their enrolment or withdraw.
The changing nature of student careers is reflected in the increasing prevalence of intermissions
from study in Australia. In the case of deferral, approximately 4 per cent of Australian students were
estimated to defer their university education in 1974 (Linke, Barton, & Cannon, 1985). By 2018, 10.3
per cent of students had chosen to defer. Across states and territories in that year, the Northern
Territory recorded a much higher deferral rate of 39.3 per cent, while the Australian Capital Territory
recorded the lowest deferral rate of 4.5 per cent (Department of Education and Training, 2018). Data
from the Department of Education, Skills and Employment’s Application and Offer reports indicate
that, over the past ten years, some equity cohorts are more likely to defer than other students.
Figure 1 shows that regional students consistently have deferral rates twice that of metropolitan
students. Those from low SES backgrounds have slightly higher rates of deferral, although the scale
of the differences varies year to year. In 2018, students from low SES backgrounds were around 12
per cent more likely to defer than students from high SES backgrounds, while in 2015, they were 31
per cent more likely to defer. Indigenous students, by contrast, were consistently less likely to defer
their studies compared with the non-Indigenous cohort.
Figure 1: Deferral rates over time for all students, Indigenous students, low SES students
and regional students.
Data source: Department of Education, Skills and Employment Application and Offer reports 2010 to 2018 retrieved from
https://www.education.gov.au/undergraduate-applications-offers-and-acceptances-publications.
The classification for regional students was updated in 2016 to the latest Australian Statistical Geography Standard
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
16.0%
18.0%
20.0%
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Total Indigenous Low SES Regional (a)

Towards the point of return
16
Less is known in Australia about the frequency with which students take an intermission during their
degrees, but the evidence suggests it is relatively common. Research by Harvey et al. (2017)
examined the re-recruitment rates of students who had been reported as absent from higher
education in 2006, over a period of eight years through to the 2014 enrolment year. The study found
that, of the domestic Bachelor students in Australia who discontinued university, 21 per cent
returned to study the very next year; 36 per cent had returned within three years; and almost 50 per
cent had returned within eight years of leaving. Although re-recruitment increased at a relatively
slow rate beyond the eight-year period after intermission, the data revealed that nearly half of all
students who take leave subsequently returned to the higher education sector, despite limited
encouragement from universities to do so (Harvey et al., 2017).
Although many students who take an intermission manage to eventually re-enrol in universities,
there remains a risk that withdrawing from the system could result in a ‘disconnect’ from formal
study that might never be re-connected (Stehlik, 2010). Moreover, students who withdraw can
become stigmatised as well as suffer financial loss (Harvey et al., 2017). At the system level, the
impact of student withdrawals and subsequent attrition affects overall attainment levels and
efficiency. As several authors have noted, further improvement to attainment rates must come partly
from a focus on improving student retention and completion (Productivity Commission, 2019).
Withdrawals can also be examined through the lens of student equity. Despite the fact that students
from non-traditional backgrounds have increased their absolute chances of continuing to some form
of higher education, there remain significant differences in their retention and graduation levels
compared to national averages (Department of Education and Training, 2018; Edwards & McMillan,
2015). Previous studies in Australia and other countries have shown that students from
disadvantaged backgrounds are generally more likely to take an intermission and are less likely to
return to study (e.g., Barrett & Powell, 1977; Bornholt, Gientzotis, & Cooney, 2004; Harvey et al.,
2017; Krause, Hartley, James, & McInnis, 2005; Linke et al., 1985; Weaving, 1978; Wright, Frew,
Hatcher, & Mok, 1996). Greater student equity demands more than a simple focus on access, but
also efforts to improve success and completion (Devlin, 2013; Devlin & McKay, 2014).
For all groups of students, higher education confers significant personal benefits, including lifelong
development, income earning capacity, and career and social status (Norton, 2012; Rizvi & Lingard,
2011). It was not until after World War II that Australians in general began to perceive education as
a means to improving the life chances of individuals, no matter their social origins (Anderson &
Vervoorn, 1983). There is an increasing requirement to have a tertiary level of education to succeed
in the labour market and to protect oneself from economic hardship (Checchi, 2006; Côté, 2006;
OECD, 2010). Those who obtain higher education degrees improve their chances for economic
security, while many who do not risk falling into poverty (Terriquez & Gurantz, 2015). As the life
span theory of control (Heckhausen & Schulz, 1995) indicates, investment in goals at periods of
transition (e.g. from school to university) is crucial for successful pathways to adulthood (Haase,
Heckhausen, & Köller, 2008). Transition delays are often associated with negative outcomes,
including poorer academic attainment and lower well-being (Haase et al., 2008); increased likelihood
of attrition (Cardak & Vecci, 2016; Crawford & Cribb, 2012; Holmlund, Liu, & Nordström Skans,
2008; Parker, Lüdtke, Trautwein, & Roberts, 2012); and lower earnings and wages (Crawford &
Cribb, 2012).

Towards the point of return
17
REASONS FOR TAKING AN INTERMISSION
In this section we outline existing research into the major reasons for intermission, including
deferrals by commencing students, and the taking of leave by continuing students. Importantly, our
previous research and existing data confirm that recent trends in deferrals and withdrawals are fairly
steady, as are university attrition rates across the sector. Institutions may therefore have limited
ability to prevent students deferring and withdrawing, but they have greater ability to facilitate the re-
enrolment and re-recruitment of those students (Harvey et al., 2017). Here we examine the financial,
developmental, personal and cultural reasons identified for deferring and taking leave. We also
address the prominent view among researchers that most leave-taking is multi-factorial, and the
belief that some degree of leave-taking is either inevitable and/or advisable.
Deferrals
Around two thirds of deferrals are taken by school leavers (Department of Education and Training,
2018) and, in this context, it is worth understanding some of the broader issues around adolescent
development and sectoral transition. The transition from secondary school to university is a major
developmental milestone and is associated with the requirement to address a number of
developmental tasks that can be a confronting experience (Dietrich, Parker, & Salmela-Aro, 2012;
King, 2011; Nurmi, 2001; Oswald & Clark, 2003; Parker, Lüdtke, et al., 2012; Zarrett & Eccles,
2006). As Hunter (2006) notes:
‘The first college year is not “grade 13.” Incoming students, whether they come to college
from high school or from the world of work, enter a new culture… [with] a foreign set of norms,
traditions and rituals, and a new language and environment’ (p. 4).
This is particularly true for students from low SES and rural backgrounds, who are more likely than
others to believe that their Year 12 studies did not prepare them adequately for their first year of
university (Naylor, Baik, & James, 2013). Likewise, Cosser (2009) argued that the transition is not a
linear process, but that the various disjunctions between aspiration and actualisation reveal an
inherent volatility in the youth-to-adulthood transition, as young people move from one phase of
school to the next, and from school into and through the higher education system.
The school-to-higher education transition, as indicated in the life span theory of control and other
career construction and exploration theories, presents an age-graded developmental task in which
young people are expected to begin to implement long-term educational and career goals (Dietrich
et al., 2012). It offers a vital opportunity to enact career goals, self-beliefs and identities developed
during schooling (Savickas, 2005). This is possible via pathways such as entering the labour market,
undertaking tertiary vocational education or traineeships, or by enrolling in university in anticipation
of fulfilling entry requirements into high prestige occupations (Parker, Schoon, et al., 2012). This
developmental pathway is re-enforced by social and educational structures in such a way that
opportunities are typically amassed directly following high school and decline thereafter (Dietrich et
al., 2012; Heckhausen & Tomasik, 2002).
Within this broader developmental context, previous studies suggest three broad categories of
reasons that drive students to defer their university offer: educational, financial and personal. Jones
(2004), for example, argued that delaying entry into higher education could allow students to gain
vital life experience and help students to decide which course to pursue (Jones, 2004). Heath (2007)

Towards the point of return
18
and Stehlik (2010) argued that taking a gap year may allow students to develop ‘soft skills’ needed
in the modern world of work via employment and travelling, to develop social values allowing them
to better adapt to university life and ultimately become more attractive to employers. The
development of these skills is part of young people’s identity development during their transition to
adulthood (Bagnoli, 2009; Beames, 2004; King, 2011; Pike & Beames, 2007). In this way, the
intermission experiences are recounted as spaces in the life course whereby significant biographical
changes had occurred: for example, regaining or developing confidence, maturity and/or
independence (King, 2011). Those who envisage deferral as a ‘gap year’ may also be provided with
more time for self-reflection, enhancing their sense of perspective and facilitating better-informed
decisions about their degree plans and future career options (Heath, 2007). That is, in the face of
possible post-school uncertainty, the gap year might be a pursuit that is a means of developing
implementation intentions and specific goals (Martin, 2010). Moreover, Halsey (1993) also noted
that some students may defer their offer in order to retake entry examinations to increase the range
of institutions to which they will be accepted. In summary, for deferrers who take a gap year
between school and university for educational purposes, the decision is usually deliberately made to
pursue prospective benefits through well-structured activities during the year. Thus, intermission
could be seen as an opportunity to enhance individual economic, social and cultural capital, which
offers advantages in competitive education and labour markets (Ball, Vincent, Kemp, & Pietikainen,
2004; Brown, Hesketh, & Williams, 2004; Heath, 2007; Power, Edwards, Whitty, & Wigfall, 2003;
Reay, David, & Ball, 2005).
However, not all deferrals are a positive choice, or arguably a choice at all. Many people delay the
commencement of their university studies due to financial barriers. Students often must accumulate
savings to cover expenses and qualify for governmental financial support whilst studying (Curtis,
2014). For many students, financial necessity remains the main reason to defer an offer. According
to a survey in the UK, around one-quarter of students defer university entry specifically to raise
finances to cover the costs of further study, whereas they might not otherwise have been able to
afford university (Heath, 2007). In Australia, deferrals have also been linked to obtaining Youth
Allowance (YA), a Government income support payment. Ryan (2013) found evidence that receiving
the YA while in tertiary study is associated with an increased probability of deferment Qualifying for
Youth Allowance appears to be a strong motivator for regional students particularly, with research
conducted by Freeman, Klatt, and Polesel (2014) revealing that regional deferrers were more likely
to receive Youth Allowance than students from urban areas when they returned to study.
Until July 2010, there were normally two ways by which tertiary students could claim the benefits of
YA – as a dependant or by claiming independent status. As dependants, parental incomes and
assets are required to fall below a threshold in order to be qualified for the YA. Students could
qualify as being independent of others if they earned $19,500 over 18 months or worked part-time
for at least 15 hours a week for two years (Lumsden & Stanwick, 2012). A typical way to qualify for
this allowance was through deferral. The number of students qualifying as ‘independent’ rose from
approximately 55,000 in 2000 to 75,000 in 2007 (Bradley et al., 2008). Although the allowance was
intended for people from lower socio-economic backgrounds, the threshold for parental incomes
was found to disadvantage many students from low- to middle-income families for whom the
available support proved inadequate (Dow, 2011). Data from LSAY also demonstrated that a greater
proportion of students from higher socio-economic backgrounds received YA at university than
those from lower socio-economic backgrounds, and this applied even more so to deferrers

Towards the point of return
19
(Lumsden & Stanwick, 2012). Given this distortion, and subsequent to the Bradley Review (Bradley
et al., 2008), reforms were introduced to the YA scheme.
The key components of the change revolved around raising the threshold for
parental income and ‘tightening’ the independence criteria, such that to be classified
as ‘independent’ the young person had to work for at least 30 hours per week for 18
months over a two-year period. By making it harder to access YA through the
independence criteria and easier to access the criteria through the dependent
criteria, it was hoped that young people from low- to middle-income families would
be the main beneficiaries (Lumsden & Stanwick, 2012, p. 9).
There has been no systemic formal review of student income support since the Kwong Lee Dow
review in 2011, although, income support was considered by the Halsey and Napthine reviews into
regional education. The Independent Review into Regional, Rural and Remote Education (Halsey
Review) found that the current Youth Allowance requirements was a particular issue for prospective
regional students, many of whom already face the significant financial burden of having to relocate
for tertiary level study. The independence criteria were identified as being particularly challenging in
locations suitable jobs were in short supply and could result in fewer students undertaking tertiary
study (Halsey, 2018 p. 60). In response to the Halsey review, the family means testing for the
Concessional Workforce Independence criteria for regional students was increased by 10,000
dollars for each child within a family (Napthine, Graham, Lee & Wills; 2019).
The National Regional, Rural and Remote Tertiary Education Strategy, which followed the Halsey
Review, recommended further changes, including: a new payment for all regional full time students
who have to relocate for their studies, allowing regional students who undertake their first year via
external study to access Youth Allowance as an independent if they relocate in their second year,
reducing earning requirements for the workforce test for regional students and reviewing changes to
parental income means testing to ensure those changes had the intended impact (Napthine et al.,
2019 p. 63). The government has indicated that it accepted the aims of the seven key
recommendations of the Napthine Review (Tehan, 2019), with many of these recommendations
being adopted in the recently announced Job Ready reforms (Australian Government, 2020).
Given the substantial changes to Youth Allowance over the past decade, there is a need to ensure
the reforms have had the desired effect. Publicly available statistics from the Department of Social
Services show that the number of higher education students accessing Youth Allowance has
increased from 2009 levels but has remained relatively steady since 2013. Over the same time, the
number of dependents receiving Youth Allowance payments have dramatically reduced from a high
in 2011, likely to be due to moving payments for secondary school students from Youth Allowance to
the Family Tax Benefit (Department of Social Services, 2018). A systematic review, using
customised data from the Department of Social Services, or longitudinal datasets likes the LSAY,
may be required to ensure the intentions of the post-Bradley Youth Allowance reforms met their
intended purpose.
In Terriquez and Gurantz’s (2015) study of over 2,200 young people in California, they observed that
financial considerations in emerging adulthood play a key role in shaping pathways through higher
education. This can include receipt of government financial aid, attending to family financial
obligations, paying for housing expenses and rising tuition rates. More importantly, they argued that

Towards the point of return
20
it is worth distinguishing the influence of ‘financial factors connected to an individual’s family
background, and related, but temporally distinct financial issues experienced during the transition to
adulthood’ (p. 204) on young adults’ trajectories after they leave high school. Young people typically
cannot determine or define their family socio-economic background, but they do exercise some level
of agency in responding to their financial circumstances as they make their way through school.
Additionally, young adults’ own financial circumstances merit separate attention because students
have been paying for an increasing share of their own postsecondary education in recent decades
(Perna, 2006). Equally, lack of sufficient financial literacy (Jorgensen & Savla, 2010; Shim, Barber,
Card, Xiao, & Serido, 2010) could worsen the financial stress of young adults when facing rising
housing and tuition costs (Baum & Ma, 2012; Kroll, 2013; Terriquez & Gurantz, 2015). Students from
regional and remote locations particularly experience financial barriers. In the On Track Survey 2011
Longitudinal Report: The 2007 Cohort 4 Years On, many deferrers from non-metropolitan locations
cited the need to move away from home – and the financial implications of that move, including the
costs of study – as an important factor in their decision to defer further study (Brown, Rothman, &
Underwood, 2012). The costs of relocation help to explain why students from regional areas are
more than twice as likely to defer than students from metropolitan locations (Polesel, 2009).
In addition to educational and financial reasons, personal considerations are frequently reported by
deferrers. Freeman et al’s study on deferment in regional Victoria found health problems or
disabilities such as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and epilepsy were reported as prominent reasons to
delay the commencement of university study. Health considerations are not exclusively physical but
also include psychological concerns. It has been suggested that students may feel inadequately
prepared to start their adulthood at university and may experience reluctance to make the transition,
or desire to take a break from formal education (Martin, 2010). A study by Harvey et al. (2017) also
confirmed that mental health issues and a change of career plans were two primary reasons for
undergraduates discontinuing their study.
Leaving study after commencement
Reasons for leave-taking among continuing students often resemble those cited for deferrals among
commencing students. Health, personal reasons and financial challenges are prominent (Li & Carrol,
2017). Continuing students, however, often have more constraints on their time and greater
responsibilities than the majority of deferrers (school leavers), for example as parents and carers.
Further, some continuing students appear to take leave because of negative perceptions about the
culture and climate of their university campus. We address these cultural issues broadly here, and
will return to them in our discussion of low SES and Indigenous student leave-taking in particular.
Previous studies (e.g., see Bonham & Luckie, 1993; Daubman, Williams, Johnson, & Crump, 1985;
Hoyt & Winn, 2004; Letseka, Cosser, Breier, & Visser, 2010; Li & Carroll, 2017; Slonimsky &
Shalem, 2006; Terriquez & Gurantz, 2015; Woosley, 2003; Woosley, Slabaugh, Sadler, & Mason,
2005; Zurita, 2004) have found that students may leave university because of health and personal
issues, financial hardship, lack of time (including other adult role commitments), family deprivation,
under-preparedness for higher education (e.g., lack of clear career and educational goals),
academic failure and travel challenges, among other reasons.
Lack of time has been identified as a major reason for leave-taking. In Bonham and Luckie’s (1993)
study of about 400 leave takers from a community college in the United States(US), participants

Towards the point of return
21
frequently identified work and family responsibilities as their reason for intermission or ‘stop-out’. In
Australia, family and work responsibilities have been identified as particular influences on leave-
taking among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, and first in family, students (Li & Carroll, 2017).
Such circumstances are a source of stress for students and form barriers to integration into the
university culture, both here and overseas (Tinto, 1987). According to Li and Carroll (2017), health
or stress was reported as a reason for considering leaving university by a considerable number of
students with disability.
In addition to individual level factors, institutional culture has been identified as an obstacle for
students from non-traditional backgrounds to remain enrolled. Student-to-academic staff and
student-to-student interactions are crucial for student integration and university persistence (Davis &
Murrell, 1993). Student-to-student interactions outside of the classroom, for example, have been
found to have a strong relationship with students’ sense of belonging at university (Hurtado & Carter,
1997). In Australia, one-third of first year students consider withdrawing during their first semester
(McInnis, Hartley, Polesel, & Teese, 2000), often due to adjustment problems or environmental
factors—a mismatch with university culture or feelings of isolation—rather than because of
intellectual difficulties (Pitkethly & Prosser, 2001).
Li and Carroll (2017) found that students from non-English speaking backgrounds are particularly
more likely to report institutional reasons to consider leaving university. Indeed, despite an
increasingly diverse student population, it is questionable to what extent changes in universities’
culture, epistemology, curriculum development, dominant academic discourses, pedagogy and
service delivery have occurred (Edwards, 1993; Evans, 1995; Harding, 1990; Leathwood, 2006;
Morley, 1997; Wolffensperger, 1993). Furthermore, the location of ‘diversity’ concerns within student
bodies detracts attention from the sector’s remarkably ‘un-diverse’ staff and management profile
(Archer, 2007). Jewson, Mason, Bowen, Mulvaney, and Parmar (1991) suggested that universities
have rarely regarded themselves as institutions that could or would engage in unfair discrimination,
as they have been traditionally ‘wedded to an ethic of individual academic achievement which
purports to recognise no boundaries or barriers other than that of merit and ability’ (p. 184). Thus,
the education system itself, including the academic and administrative culture of the universities,
continually contributes to inequalities in access and success (Gale & Tranter, 2011).
In our forthcoming analysis of campus climate (Harvey & Luckman, 2020), we found substantial
prevalence of perceived unconscious bias and blatant discrimination on an Australian university
campus, particularly among groups such as Muslim students. Our previous research on Somali-
Australians also identified significant trends of discrimination both within and beyond university
campuses. Most notably, we found that a Somali-Australians with a Bachelor degree had
employment outcomes similar to other Australians who had left school before completing Year 12
(Harvey, Szalkowicz & Luckman, 2020). Australia does not run regular campus climate surveys and
the student experience surveys and barometers are limited in their diversity focus. Thus, the extent
to which cultural prejudice and/or disconnect is influencing withdrawal is not well known.
FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE INTERMISSION
Many scholars have attempted to isolate specific geo-demographic and behavioural factors that
affect the likelihood of a student deferring or withdrawing, such as academic achievement, gender,

Towards the point of return
22
family location, the type of secondary school attended, language background and wealth. In this
section we address research around some of these individual factors, beyond the self-reported
reasons and qualitative research covered previously.
A clear relationship has been noted between students’ scores on university entrance examinations
and the rate of university deferrals (Barrett & Powell, 1977; Birch & Miller, 2007; Bornholt et al.,
2004; Curtis, 2014; Elsworth, Day, Hurworth, & Andrews, 1982; Hillman, 2005; Linke et al., 1985;
Lumsden & Stanwick, 2012; Weaving, 1978). Low-achieving students are more uncertain about their
tertiary academic studies than high-achieving students. The negative relationship may indicate that
lower-achieving students do not have the motivation or conviction to continue with study straight
after high school (Birch & Miller, 2007; Martin, 2010). Other characteristics of deferrers include being
female (e.g., see Hillman, 2005; Lamb, 2001); from independent schools (e.g., see Bornholt et al.,
2004; Hillman, 2005; Krause et al., 2005; Linke et al., 1985); having English-speaking backgrounds
(see Curtis, 2014; Lumsden & Stanwick, 2012); being employed when in Year 12 at school; and
being less likely to receive Youth Allowance payments while at school (Lumsden & Stanwick, 2012).
In addition, abundant evidence has proved that students who live in rural areas are more likely to
have a one-year break between high school and university (see Barrett & Powell, 1977; Bornholt et
al., 2004; Curtis, 2014; Freeman et al., 2014; Krause et al., 2005; Linke et al., 1985; Lumsden &
Stanwick, 2012; Weaving, 1978). The high impact of living in non-capital city areas on rates of
deferral partly reflects the fact that students who do not live close to their tertiary institutions need
time between high school and university study to accumulate savings for the additional costs (i.e.
living) of attending university (see Birch & Miller, 2007; Krause et al., 2005). Polesel (2009) analysed
the tracking data from the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (DEECD) in
Victoria and confirmed the greater propensity for school completers from rural and provincial regions
of Victoria to defer a university place, compared with school completers from Melbourne. Tracking
work conducted out in Queensland (for example, Department of Education Training and the Arts,
2007) also confirms the tendency of non-metropolitan school-completers to defer university places
at a higher rate. As discussed previously, the higher rate of deferrals with non-metropolitan students
is due to a combination of factors relating to isolation and financial hardship, and regional students
are more likely than metropolitan students to be from low SES backgrounds, which compounds the
disadvantage (Harvey, Burnheim, & Brett, 2016).
In Australia, students from identified equity groups, such as those from regional and/or low SES
backgrounds, with a disability and Indigenous students, are also more likely to discontinue their
university degree when compared to their peers (Department of Education and Training, 2016; Li &
Carroll, 2017). As a cohort, students from low SES backgrounds are slightly more likely than the
overall domestic student population to leave university (Harvey et al., 2017). In addition, low
achievers at school are disproportionately susceptible to attrition (Edwards & McMillan, 2015) and
the correlation between ATAR and SES is well documented (e.g., Birrell, Calderon, Dobson, &
Smith, 2000; Dobson & Smith, 2000; Dobson & Skuja, 2005; Lomax-Smith, Watson, & Webster,
2011). These findings are consistent with international research highlighting that non-traditional
students, including under-represented minorities, older students, etc., are more likely to discontinue
their studies (Rose-Adams, 2013; Terriquez & Gurantz, 2015; Walker, Matthew, & Black, 2004).

Towards the point of return
23
RE-ENROLMENT AFTER INTERMISSION
There has been little research at national level on deferral patterns and causes. In this section we
cover existing research from Victorian studies in particular, but it should be noted that there remains
a gap in national analysis of deferrals, to which our research in this report directly responds. Equally,
there is little research around leave-taking at national level, with our own previous research
providing analysis based on limited national data (Harvey et al., 2017). To our knowledge, this
project is the first in-depth analysis of HEIMS data on deferral and leave-taking patterns.
Previous Victorian studies suggest that the majority of those who defer subsequently take up their
university study after one to three years of deferment. Polesel (2009) surveyed 806 non-
metropolitan deferrers who completed Year 12 in Victoria at the end of 2006. He found that 69.9 per
cent of the group were attending university in 2008 (after a one-year deferment), 9.3 per cent were
enrolled in Vocational Education and Training (VET) programs and the remaining 3.1 per cent were
combining employment with training in the form of an apprenticeship (1.2 per cent) or a traineeship
(1.9 per cent). In total, 82.3 per cent of deferrers were in some form of recognised education or
training. A similar survey, conducted by Freeman et al. (2014) for non-metropolitan deferrers who
completed Year 12 in Victoria at the end of 2009, suggested that 61 per cent of the cohort entered
university in 2011 (after a one-year deferment), with a further 11.8 per cent attending VET programs.
The proportion of re-enrolment at university of this cohort increased to 63.2 per cent in 2012. By
2010, 60 per cent of 2008 deferrers were at university, with 92 per cent of them in the same course
as in the previous year. In 2011, 65 per cent of the 2008 deferrers were studying at university, an
increase compared to the previous year (Brown et al., 2012).
Previous research also suggests that deferrers with high prior achievement from medium-high SES
backgrounds and living in non-metropolitan areas are more likely to recommit to their studies. In
Polesel’s (2009) study, it was observed that deferrers who made the transition to university in 2008
were more likely to come from the two higher SES quartiles, suggesting that the financial
implications of university study continue to have an impact on the pathways of regional deferrers two
years out of school. A previous study (Teese, Robinson, Lamb, & Mason, 2006) noted a similar
relationship between students’ SES and their likelihood to take up university study. In addition,
Polesel (2009) found that deferrers who made the transition to university were more likely to come
from the two higher quartiles of achievement. Non-metropolitan deferrers may in fact be more likely
to take up their place in university one year after deferment than their metropolitan peers (Polesel,
2009; Teese et al., 2006). However, it should be remembered that non-metropolitan students are far
more likely to defer in the first place than metropolitan students.
Despite the majority of deferrers eventually taking up tertiary student status, there remains a small
but sizable proportion of deferrers who could be classified as ‘at risk’, reporting destinations of part-
time employment, unemployment or ‘inactive’ status. In Polesel’s (2009) study, 17.7 per cent of
deferrers were not in education or training of any kind in the year following deferment. Most (16.2
per cent of the cohort as a whole) were in paid work with 11.4 per cent of these in full-time positions
and 4.8 per cent in part-time positions. Few were unemployed (1.0 per cent) and a very small group
(0.5 per cent) were inactive, which means, in this context, they were not in education or training and
were neither in paid employment nor looking for paid employment. The On Track Survey 2011
Longitudinal Report The 2007 Cohort 4 Years On also reported that one in five deferrers were not in

Towards the point of return
24
education or training, of which 10 per cent were full-time employed, 8 per cent were part-time
employed and 2 per cent were either looking for work or unemployed.
There has been relatively little research focusing specifically on the re-engagement of leave takers.
Nonetheless, research conducted by Harvey et al. (2017) found a consistent gap in re-recruitment
rates by socio-economic background, among other variables. Low SES students were less likely to
be re-recruited than students from both medium and high SES backgrounds, which partly explains
the extent of the completion gap. That is, the relatively low degree completion rates of low SES
students are a result of slightly higher rates of withdrawal and lower rates of re-enrolment following
withdrawal. The analysis found that students from high SES backgrounds were 25 per cent more
likely than those from low SES backgrounds to be re-recruited into higher education after a two-year
absence (Harvey et al,. 2017). The authors also found that the re-recruitment rate in Australia was
approximately four percentage points lower than the return rate in the UK between 2007-2008, with
rates broadly comparable between the 2013-2015 period.
The research also found that in the United Kingdom, additional contextual information is provided
with the headline “non-continuation” rate (Harvey et al,. 2017). The Higher Education Statistics
Agency reports the proportion of students who transferred to a course in the same field of education
but a different institution, the proportion of students who changed both fields of education and
institution and the proportion of students who return to study the year following an absence (Higher
Education Statistics Agency, 2020). These statistics provide useful context for the non-continuation
rates published for each institution by provide greater context around break taking and allows
institutions to benchmark performance and aim to improve it.

Towards the point of return
25
Analysis of student enrolment data
MAJOR FINDINGS
▪ Between 8 and 10 per cent of students defer their offer each year. Most deferrers (64 per
cent) subsequently enrol at university, though not always in their original chosen course
or institution.
▪ Major predictors of deferral include prior achievement, geography, school leaver status
and course preference.
▪ While low SES students have slightly higher deferral rates, these rates appear to be
driven by other correlated factors, e.g. achievement and geography, more than SES
itself. In fact, after controlling other factors, low SES students are less likely to defer than
high SES students.
▪ Regional students are far more likely to defer than metropolitan students, though slightly
more likely to return from deferral
▪ Over 20 per cent of students take leave or withdraw within the first three years of their
enrolment. Of those who take leave or withdraw, 28 per cent return to the sector within
two years of their initial leave-taking. Combined, these data suggest that leave-taking is
a significantly greater risk to institutions than deferral.
▪ Major predictors of leave-taking include prior achievement, age, part-time study, parental
education and distance (online) enrolment.
▪ Low SES and Indigenous students are more likely to take leave than other students and
less likely to subsequently return to study. These combined patterns contribute to lower
degree completion rates among both groups.
▪ Students who are externally enrolled (online) have slightly higher rates of return to study
than students studying internally.
RECOMMENDATIONS
For universities
▪ That universities develop strategies to address the high rates of deferral by regional
students, including outreach advice, financial, travel, and accommodation support.
▪ That universities develop explicit strategies to address high rates of leave-taking (over 20
per cent) and relatively low rates of return to study from leave (28 per cent within two
years). These strategies could specifically address the major predictive factors of leave-
taking, such as prior achievement, age, part-time study, parental education, and distance
enrolment.

Towards the point of return
26
▪ Within these strategies, that universities also include a particular focus on low SES and
Indigenous students, both of whom are more likely to leave and less likely to return to
study from leave than other students.
For government
▪ That the Australian Government commission further research into student income
support, including reviewing any changes introduced as a result of the Halsey and
Napthine reviews. The research could include a review of the dependent and
independent eligibility criteria and the impact of student income support on deferral,
course choice and subsequent course completion.
▪ That the Australian Government consider additional validations/verification of
Applications and Offers data within HEIMS to ensure accurate national level data is
being captured on deferral.
INTRODUCTION
A major component of the project was to improve the quantitative evidence base for patterns in
student leave-taking and subsequent rates of return to university study. Previous studies have either
been based on sample-based surveys on patterns of deferral and subsequent educational outcomes
of students (Polesel, Klatt, & O’Hanlon, 2012), or analysis of aggregated student enrolment data
from HEIMS (Harvey, Szalkowicz, & Luckman, 2017). For the first time, our project has conducted
multivariate analysis on student level records within HEIMS, enabling us to examine the patterns of
student leave in detail.
The following section summarises the major findings from the analysis conducted by one of the
project’s collaborators, the Institute of Social Science Research (ISSR) at the University of
Queensland. The full technical report and a detailed methodology are attached as Appendix 1. The
analysis of HEIMS data entailed descriptive comparisons of the composition of deferrer and leaver
populations, as well as modelling of the risk factors for deferring, returning after deferring, leaving
after commencement and returning after leaving. These findings will serve as important context for
the exploration of institutional action covered in the subsequent sections of this report.
We begin with a brief outline of the methodology conducted and then consider deferral patterns
among commencing students, including the likelihood of deferred students returning to study. Our
findings reveal the importance of factors such as prior educational attainment, geography, school
leaver status and course preference. While we acknowledge that low SES students are slightly more
likely to defer than other students, we find the causes of deferral relate more to other correlated
factors than to SES itself. Indeed, after controlling other factors, such as age, geography, and
attainment, we find low SES students to be less likely than other students to defer. This finding
reinforces our view that educational attainment is typically more important than SES as a predictor
of university achievement and behaviour. Previous work has highlighted the relative over-
performance of low SES students at university, for a given ATAR (Harvey & Burnheim, 2013;
Messinis & Sheehan, 2015).

Towards the point of return
27
We then examine patterns of leave among continuing students, including the likelihood of returning
to study after taking leave. Educational attainment, age, part-time status and external (online)
enrolment were important predictors for leave-taking. We also found that low SES students,
students with a disability and Indigenous students were more likely to take leave. Low SES and
Indigenous students were also less likely to return after taking leave, which contributes to the well-
documented gaps in their degree completion rates. Students studying externally, usually online,
were found to be more likely than others to return, a finding which is likely to have increased
relevance as external delivery expands during the COVID-19 crisis. Yet, since low SES external
students are less likely to return than other external students, additional support may need to be
provided to ensure they return to study after a break.
METHODOLOGY
The analysis was based on customised data sourced from HEIMS. It was developed by the Institute
of Social Science Research (ISSR) in partnership with the DESE. Due to the complexity of the data,
and differences in the ways that student data is collected between the Applications and Offers and
Higher Education Student collections within HEIMS, three separate datasets were constructed as
part of the project.
The first dataset is based on data from the Application and Offers collection within HEIMS for 2011
to 2018 and was used to analyse trends in deferral over time. The second dataset matched student
records from the Applications and Offers and Higher Education Student collections for years 2014
through to 2017. This dataset was developed to examine the subsequent enrolment patterns of
students who had deferred their study in 2014. Finally, a longitudinal dataset between 2011 and
2018 was created using the Higher Education Student collection, which allowed the project to
examine the patterns of student leave once students had commenced study including subsequent
re-enrolments. The analysis used a mix of descriptive statistics and logistic regression modelling to
examine patterns in leave-taking and returning to study.
The analysis is based on domestic Bachelor (Pass, Honours, Graduate entry) students enrolled in
Table A or B higher education providers. Deferrers were defined by the ‘response code’ (element
723) for a Bachelor level offer reported in the Offer Details file within the Applications and Offers
data collection. Students returning from deferral were defined as those who had an enrolment record
by 2016 after deferring an offer in 2014.
While virtually every university in Australia allows students to take a temporary leave of absence
from study, HEIMS does not specifically capture any details regarding leave of absence. As a proxy,
the quantitative analysis defined a university leaver as someone who was absent from study for
between one to two years and was calculated using an approach similar to the Department’s attrition
calculation. The analysis focussed on students who commenced in 2011 and were absent (had no
enrolment record) for at least one year until 2013. Returners were defined as leavers who had an
enrolment record within a Bachelor level program within two years after leaving.
Logistic regression modelling was used extensively within the project to evaluate the likelihood of
deferral, leave-taking and subsequent return for a variety of variables recorded in HEIMS. The use
of regression models allows the project to isolate the effect size of various socio-demographic

Towards the point of return
28
variables while controlling for the impact of all other variables included in the model. A list of the
HEIMS elements used in the regression modelling are listed below.

Towards the point of return
29
Table 1: List of variables used in the analysis of HEIMS data.
VARIABLE
VALUES
Gender
Female, Male
Age
<18 years, 18 years, 19-22 years, >=23 years (as of 1 January of the reference
year)
Aboriginal and/or Torres
Strait Islander (ATSI)
ATSI, Not ATSI
Remoteness
Major city, Regional, Remote
Citizen
Australian citizen, other
Previous highest level of
educational participation
Completed degree (includes sub-degree), incomplete degree (includes sub-
degree), Year 12, Other (includes complete and incomplete TAFE, other
qualification and none)
ATAR quartile
No ATAR, First quartile, Second quartile, Third quartile, Fourth quartile
(calculated for each year)
Tertiary Admissions
Centre (TAC) (deferral
models only)
Direct, NSW and ACT, QLD, SA and NT, VIC, WA
University group
Go8, ATN, IRU, RUN, Other (group membership defined as of January 2020)
Number of university
campuses
Up to 3, Between 4 and 7, 8 or more (defined by number of postcodes
associated to a university in the data)
Multiple offer (deferral
models only)
Received multiple offers, Received single offer
First preference (deferral
models only)
First preference, Other (included ‘0’ values)
Highest level of parental
qualification (leaver
models only)
Postgraduate, Bachelor, Other post-school, Year 12, Other, don’t
know/NA/missing (based on information on up to two parents)
Full-time/part-time status
(leaver models only)
Full-time, part-time
Mode of study (leaver
models only)
Internal, external, multi-modal
Field of study
Science & Mathematics, Computing & Information Systems, Engineering,
Architecture & Built Environment, Agriculture & Environmental Studies, Health
Services Support, Medicine, Nursing, Pharmacy, Dentistry, Veterinary Science,
Rehabilitation, Teacher Education, Business & Management, Humanities,
Culture & Social Sciences, Social Work, Psychology, Law & Paralegal, Creative
Arts, Communications, Tourism, Hospitality, Personal Services, Sport &
Recreation
Given the challenges of matching data collections that were not intended to be linked, the
researchers were required to make several decisions throughout their analysis regarding what
constituted a case for the study. As such, much of the analysis is not directly comparable between
the three datasets used in this analysis, nor are they comparable to the statistics reported in

Towards the point of return
30
aggregate by the DESE. A thorough discussion of these methodological issues are discussed in
detail within the full report attached as Appendix 1.
As part of the data checking and validation process, deferral statistics were calculated by institution
and examined. The researchers found that a small number of institutions reported zero or very few
student deferrals, suggesting that there may be some undercounting of deferrals in the
Department’s Applications and Offers data collection within HEIMS. This is perhaps unsurprising,
given the stakes of the data collection are not as high as the other data collected by HEIMS that is
connected to funding calculations. Nonetheless, to ensure accurate statistics on student deferral it
may be necessary for the Department to conduct an audit on the data collection and for additional
verification to be conducted when the data is submitted to HEIMS by institutions.
ANALYSIS OF DEFERRAL RATES
Our analysis shows that around 9 per cent of domestic Bachelor level applicants who receive an
offer subsequently elect to defer their studies each year. Modelling by a range of geo-demographic
and course factors recorded in HEIMS shows that three factors appear to be most strongly
correlated with the likelihood of deferral: regional/remote residence; school leaver status; and
relatively low prior educational attainment. Perhaps surprisingly given the context of this project, we
found that students from low SES backgrounds were less likely than other students to defer, after
controlling other factors.
The results of the modelling for students from low SES backgrounds are curious, given the fact that
previous research (Polesel et al., 2012) and the Department’s own statistics publications
(Department of Education and Training, 2018) appear to suggest that students from low SES
backgrounds have a slightly higher risk of deferral. The apparently contrasting findings are explained
by modelling: while low SES students do indeed defer at slightly higher rates than other students,
these higher deferral rates are explained by factors other than SES itself.
Using a regression model, the project sought to examine the relationship between low SES
background and the likelihood of deferral while controlling for a multitude of variables available
within HEIMS (see Table 1 above for the full list of variables included in the model). As Figure 2
shows, once other geo-demographic factors are controlled, the relationship between deferral and
SES is completely reversed. This relationship suggests that other characteristics, rather than SES in
itself, are driving higher deferral rates among low SES applicants. Our analysis shows that it is
primarily those from regional areas, school leavers and those with weaker prior academic
achievement that have the highest risk of deferral.

Towards the point of return
31
Figure 2: Raw and regression adjusted deferral rates by student SES, 2018.
Figure 3 shows the odds ratios of selected factors from our regression modelling that were found to
be significantly (at the 99 per cent confidence level) related to the likelihood of deferring among all
students. An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates an event is more likely to occur, while an odds ratio
of less than 1 indicates an event is less likely to occur. By far the strongest factor linked to student
deferral was being from a regional background. The odds of a regional student deferring were nearly
two and a half times higher than a student from an urban area. On the other hand, Indigeneity was
not found to be a risk factor in deferral, with the odds of an Indigenous student deferring their offer
being around 23 per cent lower compared to non-Indigenous students. The odds of a student from a
low SES background deferring were 25 per cent lower than a student from a high SES background.
The modelling also found that there was a strong relationship between ATARs and the subsequent
likelihood of deferral. In the first instance, simply having an ATAR was a statistically significant
predictor of a student deferring, suggesting school leavers, as opposed to students who had
previous university or VET study, were more likely to defer. Secondly, we found that students with
lower ATARs had a higher likelihood of deferral compared to students with higher ATARs. For
instance, the odds of a student with an ATAR in the first (lowest) quartile deferring were nearly twice
as high as a student who did not have an ATAR.

Towards the point of return
32
Figure 3: Odds ratios for selected factors found to be significantly related to student deferral.
Being offered their first preference was found to reduce the likelihood of deferral. This result,
together with the connection between deferral and having a lower ATAR, could suggest that the
students with fewer university options at selection are more likely to defer to explore other potential
career options.
Patterns of deferral for low SES applicants
Overall trends for the low SES student cohort were similar to those for all students. However, low
SES students were more likely to have other traits linked to deferral. For instance, compared to
other deferrers, low SES deferrers had a younger age profile, were less likely to have undertaken
previous higher education studies and were more likely to have undertaken ‘other’ educational
participation, such as Vocational Education and Training (VET). Low SES students also had a lower
ATAR profile, were less likely to have received an offer from a Group of Eight (Go8) university and
more likely to have received an offer from a university belonging to the Innovative Research
Universities (IRU) network or the Regional Universities Network (RUN).
There is a considerable range of deferral rates for students from low SES backgrounds associated
with different fields of study: Computing & Information Systems, and Engineering typically had lower
rates of deferral, while Agriculture and Environmental Studies, and Architecture & Built Environment
had higher deferral rates.
DEFERRAL OVER TIME
Overall, there has been a slight decrease in the deferral rates of Bachelor level domestic students
from 9.1 per cent in 2011 to 8.1 per cent in 2018. As shown in Figure 4, when examined by SES, we
found that the decline in deferral rates was largest amongst students from high SES backgrounds,
while students from low SES backgrounds experienced the smallest decline. This overall trend was
exacerbated once adjusted deferral rates – which control for the effect of a wide range of covariates
within the HEIMS dataset – were compared, suggesting the factor(s) contributing to the decline in
deferral rates are likely to be external to our modelling of HEIMS data.
0.75
0.77
0.78
0.89
1.27
1.48
1.65
1.92
2.44
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Low SES (v. high SES)
Indigenous (v. non-Indigenous)
First preference (v. other)
Males (v. non-males)
ATAR fourth quartile (v. no ATAR)
ATAR third quartile (v. no ATAR)
ATAR second quartile (v. no ATAR)
ATAR first quartile (v. no ATAR)
Regional (v. urban)

Towards the point of return
33
Figure 4: Unadjusted deferral rates by SES, 2011 to 2018.
While it is not possible from our analysis of HEIMS data to establish the possible cause of the
overall decline in deferral rates with deferral time series data alone, one possible explanation could
be changes made to Youth Allowance in the years following the Bradley Report. The 2008 Bradley
Report found that income support was comparatively poorly targeted to those who needed it the
most, with income support being provided to relatively well-off students (Bradley et al., 2008, p. 54).
As outlined in the literature review, there are two main pathways to be eligible for Youth Allowance
payments. Firstly, if applicants are still dependent on their parents, a household means test is
applied to gauge eligibility. Secondly, if an applicant is judged to be independent, the applicant
would only be assessed based on their personal circumstances (Services Australia, 2020).
Research conducted by Ryan (2013) suggests there is a strong relationship between the
requirements for independence, which commonly relates to working a certain number of hours over
a certain period, and the likelihood of deferral. The changes recommended in the Bradley Report,
and subsequently implemented in the 2010 Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment
(Income Support for Students) Bill, were designed to reallocate student income support to those who
needed it the most. To achieve this, the means testing for students judged to be dependent was
relaxed and the criteria for independence were made more onerous by increasing the work
requirements, with more lenient criteria for students from regional and remote locations (Daniels,
2017).
As shown in Figure 4, there has been a larger decrease in deferral rates for students from
advantaged backgrounds compared to students from low SES backgrounds; a trend exacerbated
after controlling for covariates within HEIMS. This pattern may suggest that students from
advantaged backgrounds are deciding the potential benefit of acquiring Youth Allowance as an
independent is not worth delaying university entry for an extended period in order to meet the paid

Towards the point of return
34
work requirements. Meanwhile, the changes appear to have had less of an impact on changing the
incentives for deferral by students from low SES backgrounds.
Further research would be required to examine the full impact of Youth Allowance changes. This
research could draw on more detailed data about the activity and socio-demographics of Youth
Allowance over time. This analysis would require custom data from the Department of Social
Services, or longitudinal data from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia
(HILDA) survey, LSAY, or the experimental composite datasets being developed by the Australian
Bureau of Statistics.
In addition to the overall decline in deferral rates between 2011 and 2018, there was also a
noticeable one-year drop in deferral rates in the 2015 enrolment year. Our analysis could find no
obvious change in Youth Allowance policy in 2014 or 2015 (Daniels, 2017). One possible
explanation could be the proposed changes to higher education included in the 2014-15 Federal
Budget, which included a proposal to reduce the Commonwealth Grant Scheme (CGS) funding and
uncap student contribution amounts to shift an increasing proportion of the burden for study costs
from the taxpayer to students themselves (Department of Education and Training, 2015). It was
highly probable that the proposed changes would have resulted in a significant increase in student
fees starting from the 2016 enrolment year. Most observers agreed that institutions would, at the
very least, increase their fees by 20 per cent to offset the reduction in CGS funding, and that, in the
most extreme scenario, institutions might have increased their student fees to be comparable to
international or full postgraduate student fees (Ryan, 2014; Sharrock, 2014).
The observed decrease in student deferrals could therefore be due to students deciding to start their
courses sooner to capitalise on at least a single year of their degree under the prevailing student
contributions policy. Potential deferrers were in a unique position to be able to adjust their behaviour
to take advantage of the change. The decline in deferrals may imply that a relatively significant
proportion of deferrers, around 14 per cent, were aware of the changes and acted accordingly. The
fact that students from high SES backgrounds reported a slightly larger decrease compared to
students from low SES backgrounds is consistent with previous research, which shows that students
with higher reserves of social capital are more likely to act strategically when it comes to decision-
making with regards to higher education study (Cardak, Bowden, & Bahtsevanoglou, 2015).
FACTORS PREDICTING RETURN AFTER DEFERRAL
The study found that most deferrers, 64.3 per cent, subsequently enrolled in a university course,
although not always in the same course that they initially deferred. This data is broadly consistent
with previous studies of the destinations of students who defer (Klatt & Polesel, 2013; Polesel &
Klatt, 2014; Polesel et al., 2012). According to our analysis, of the 22,590 applicants who deferred
their offer in 2014, 35.7 per cent (or 8,073 applicants), had not enrolled in a Bachelor’s degree by
the end of 2016 despite receiving an offer. This gap represents a relatively large number of students
lost to the sector, despite most students returning.
Figure 5 shows the odds ratios of selected factors correlated with the likelihood of returning to study
after deferral. As previously outlined, low SES was not in itself a high predictive factor of deferral,
though SES was a moderately strong predictor of not returning to study. The odds of a deferrer from

Towards the point of return
35
a low SES background returning to study are 27 per cent lower than a student from a high SES
background.
Figure 5: Odds ratios for selected factors significantly associated with the likelihood of a
student returning to study after a deferral.
The figure also shows that students with ATARs in the highest quartile have a much higher
likelihood of returning to study compared to students with no ATAR or ATARs from the lowest
quartile. The odds of a student with an ATAR in the top quartile returning to study were more than
three times higher than students who had reported no ATAR. Being from a regional background was
associated with a higher likelihood of returning and the odds of these students returning to university
was around 34 per cent higher compared to students from urban areas. This trend seems to support
the view that regional deferral is driven by strategic considerations, such as saving money for
relocation and qualifying for Youth Allowance as an independent.
Older students were less likely to return after deferring. The odds of a mature age (23 or older)
student returning to study after deferral were 60 per cent lower than students aged 18 or lower.
Thus, while both age and SES were not associated with a higher risk of deferral, both factors were
associated with a higher risk of not returning to study after a period of deferral.
Patterns of returning to study for low SES students
For students from low SES backgrounds, we found that younger low SES deferrers (aged under 23
years) were significantly more likely to return than older low SES deferrers. Low SES deferrers in
regional areas were significantly more likely to return than low SES deferrers in major cities, and low
SES deferrers with incomplete higher education degrees were more likely to return than other low
SES deferrers. Higher ATARs were also associated with higher return rates, as was having applied
through the TAC in the case of WA. Low SES deferrers who had a place at a Go8 university were
significantly more likely to return than deferrers who had an offer to study at a RUN university.
Indigenous deferrers were less likely to return than non-Indigenous deferrers, but this result was not
statistically significant at the 95 per cent confidence level.
Overall, return patterns after deferral appear to be largely influenced by two aspects: mature age
and previous educational attainment. Combining the risk factors for deferring with those for failing to
return reveals the importance of educational attainment. Low attainment is a major predictor of
0.40
0.73
0.88
1.34
1.62
2.72
3.19
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
23 years or older (v. younger than 18)
Low SES (v. high SES)
ATAR first quartile (v. no ATAR)
Regional (v. urban)
ATAR second quartile (v. no ATAR)
ATAR third quartile (v. no ATAR)
ATAR fourth quartile (v. no ATAR)

Towards the point of return
36
deferring, and of failing to return after deferring, which together results in complete withdrawal from
the sector.
LEAVING AFTER COMMENCEMENT
Overall, around 22 per cent of students who commenced in 2011 were found to have taken leave or
withdrawn from the higher education sector in the first three years of study, which represents more
than 45,000 students. Students were around twice as likely to take leave after commencing
university study than to defer an offer prior to commencement.
Our analysis of overall risk factors for students’ leaving higher education broadly reflects the
substantial body of previous research, which has examined the issue of early departure using
HEIMS data (Birch & Miller, 2007; Department of Education and Training, 2017; Li & Carroll, 2017;
Norton, Cherastidtham, & Mackey, 2018). Figure 6 shows selected factors that logistic regression
modelling found were significantly associated with the likelihood of leaving university. It shows that
studying part-time, having a low ATAR, being mature aged, being male and studying externally were
associated with a higher likelihood of leaving university early. Our analysis also shows that several
equity factors were associated with early departure: Indigenous, low SES, regional/remote and
disability status were all independently associated with a higher propensity to take leave.
Figure 6: Odds ratios for selected student characteristics associated with the likelihood of a
student leaving the university early.
For Indigenous students, we find that even once the covariates within HEIMS (prior academic
achievement, equity group membership, age profile etc.) are accounted for, they remain at a
substantially higher risk of leaving university early. Understanding the reasons for higher rates of
leaving university still requires work and is not adequately explained by the quantitative models
drawn from HEIMS data.
There is a growing body of evidence to suggest that factors such as the cultural climate on campus
are important in explaining higher Indigenous student attrition rates (Behrendt, Larkin, Griew, &
Kelly, 2012; Liddle, 2015; Raciti, Carter, Gilbey, & Hollinsworth, 2017). Fostering a whole of
institution approach to building a more diverse and supportive climate on campus is a vital
0.42
0.68
1.03
1.13
1.14
1.25
1.28
1.28
1.34
1.93
2.51
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
ATAR fourth quartile (v. no ATAR)
ATAR third quartile (v. no ATAR)
ATAR second quartile (v. no ATAR)
Low SES (v. high SES)
Students with a disability (v. no disability)
Males (v. non-males)
23 years or older (v. younger than 18)
External (v. internal)
ATAR first quartile (v. no ATAR)
Indigenous (v. non-Indigenous)
Part-time (v. full-time)

Towards the point of return
37
component to improve the outcomes of Indigenous students, including leave-taking and encouraging
students to return after a break. Furthermore, institutions must develop tailored student support
interventions/initiatives that target some of the main barriers to Indigenous students’ successful
participation in higher education; financial pressures (Barney, 2018; Barney, 2016; Gore et al.,
2017), familial obligations/issues (Barney, 2016; Day et al., 2015) while recognising key enablers of
retention; family support (Barney, 2016), timely financial support (Barney, 2018; Day et al. 2015) and
inclusive curricula and pedagogy (Day et al., 2015).
Patterns of leave for low SES students
Examining specific patterns of leaving university within the low SES student group highlighted some
interesting results. After accounting for other differences, parental education still played a role in
leaving. Low SES students with a university educated parent were less likely to leave than those
with parents whose highest level of education was Year 12 or below. One of the strongest empirical
predictors for leaving for low SES students was part-time study status.
There are some similarities between the predictors for low SES deferring and for low SES leaving,
particularly with respect to regional or remote background, and ATAR. Regional and remote status
were strong empirical predictors for deferring, and particularly remote status was a strong predictor
for leaving. The higher students’ ATAR, the less likely they were to defer and take leave. Students
with no ATAR were also more likely to leave, though not more likely to defer.
Overall, the empirical predictors for leaving were similar for low SES university students compared
to university students in aggregate. However, some of the characteristics associated with leaving,
such as regional/remote residence, having no ATAR and/or a low ATAR profile, lower parental
education levels and ‘other’ previous highest educational participation, were more likely to be found
among low SES students. Low SES commencing students were also more likely to be Indigenous,
which is another empirical risk factor for leaving.
Given the recent dramatic changes to teaching arrangements at virtually all Australian universities
during the COVID-19 crisis, which has seen an enormous increase in online enrolments, our
analysis provides a glimpse of the potential impact of these changes on students from low SES
backgrounds. The data shows that the risk of a low SES student prematurely leaving their university
is increased with online study, when all other factors are controlled in our regression model.
However, the relative difference in leaving rates for low SES students compared to students overall
appears to be slightly reduced among those studying online. Nonetheless, additional support will
need to be provided to low SES cohorts who are now forced to learn online in this pandemic.
RETURNING TO STUDY AFTER LEAVE
HEIMS data was used to measure the proportion of students who returned to university within two
years of initially leaving. The analysis found that 28 per cent of students returned to university within
two years of taking a break from study, broadly in line with the findings from Harvey et al. (2017).
This translates to nearly 13,000 students returning to higher education within two years of taking
leave.
Figure 7 shows some of the selected factors found to be associated with the likelihood of return to
study after leave. Again, we found a relationship between ATAR and the likelihood of returning to

Towards the point of return
38
study. The odds of a student with an ATAR in the top quartile returning to study after leave were 68
per cent higher than a student with no ATAR.
Figure 7: Odds ratio of selected factors significantly related to the likelihood of returning to
study after a break.
Figure 7 also shows that the odds of a student from a low SES background returning to higher
education after leave were around 16 per cent lower than a high SES student. This finding means
that low SES students were slightly more likely to leave university early and less likely to return after
leave. These combined trends help to explain the noted gap in longer term completion rates
between high SES and low SES students. Students from regional backgrounds and English-
speaking backgrounds, students with lower prior achievement, Indigenous and mature age students
and those who were first in family were less likely to return to study after leaving university.
Our findings regarding leave and return patterns of students studying externally are particularly
salient given the current COVID-19 pandemic and the dramatic shift to online study. These data
suggest that the greater flexibility of online learning may encourage and support non-linear
pathways through higher education study, with a higher incidence of “stop-out” behaviours.
Institutions may have to adjust existing procedures and practices to account for the increase in
flexibility.
Nevertheless, we found a socio-economic dimension to the likelihood of returning to study among
students enrolled externally. Students from low SES backgrounds who were studying externally
were less likely to return to study than other domestic students studying externally. This fact,
together with the finding that low SES students studying externally were more likely to leave in the
first instance, means that extra effort may be required to support students from low SES
backgrounds to return to study as online learning increases.
0.46
0.66
0.76
0.83
0.84
0.85
0.86
1.13
1.13
1.48
1.68
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
23 years or older (v. younger than 18)
Indigenous (v. non-Indigenous)
Parental education Year 12 (v. postgrad)
ATAR first quartile (v. no ATAR)
Low SES (v. high SES)
Part-time (v. full-time)
Males (v. non-males)
External (v. internal)
ATAR second quartile (v. no ATAR)
ATAR third quartile (v. no ATAR)
ATAR fourth quartile (v. no ATAR)

Towards the point of return
39
Survey of institutional responses to
leave-taking
MAJOR FINDINGS
▪ Most respondents highlighted clear governance and reporting arrangements for
managing leave-taking behaviour, though the level of priority varied by institution type.
▪ Respondents noted a number of specific interventions to increase rates of return to
study, including communications, academic and personal counselling and financial
support, though most felt these initiatives were only ‘somewhat effective.’
▪ Relatively few institutions monitored leave-taking by equity group or targeted initiatives to
specific equity groups.
▪ Major constraints on improving rates of return to study were identified as limited
availability of linked, accurate and timely data on deferral, leave-taking and return, and
limited resources available to conduct widespread and tailored interventions.
RECOMMENDATIONS
For universities
▪ That universities develop tailored return to study communications that are informed by
data at student level, including equity group status.
▪ That universities invest in data systems and analytics to provide timely information on
deferral, leave-taking and return to study behaviours, which can in turn inform
communication and intervention strategies.
▪ That universities embed the principles of evidence-based practice and thorough program
evaluation within all student success programs.
INTRODUCTION
A national survey of senior university staff was conducted to provide a broad snapshot of
institutional activity regarding deferral and leave of absence. The survey covered strategic
environment, governance arrangements and details of interventions conducted by institutions.
Questions were designed to clarify broad national trends and responses, complementing the
intensive research undertaken in our partner case studies and in semi-structured interviews
conducted at a smaller number of select institutions.
Survey results revealed broad awareness of the issues surrounding leave-taking, with supporting
students returning to study being a priority at most institutions. The majority of the fifteen responding
institutions had a senior executive responsible for managing leave-taking behaviour and had

Towards the point of return
40
established governance and reporting arrangements to monitor these behaviours. Responses also
revealed that most institutions had implemented specific interventions designed to improve the rates
of return of those who took an intermission from their studies.
The level of priority given to leave-taking appeared to vary depending on the circumstances faced by
respective institutions. Results indicated that institutions that tended to experience higher rates of
deferral and leave of absence and/or lower rates of return, were more likely to treat the issue as a
high priority and were more likely to intervene. By contrast, institutions with comparatively few
students taking leave and the majority returning to study, such as the Group of Eight (Go8)
institutions, appeared to attach a lower priority to addressing issues surrounding leave-taking.
Respondents identified a wide range of interventions designed to improve the return rates for leave
takers. These measures included communication plans, such as electronic communication and
phone calls; individual counselling or follow-up; provision of academic and careers counselling; and
financial support. Respondents generally felt that their interventions where ‘somewhat effective’,
emphasising the challenges inherent to improving return rates when many factors for leave-taking
were beyond the control of their institution.
While most institutions considered the issue of leave-taking as a priority, and consequently had a
range of initiatives to improve their rates of return, it was not perceived to be a specific equity
problem by a significant proportion of universities investigated. Comparatively few institutions
specifically monitored leave-taking for the six identified equity cohorts, and more than half of the
interventions conducted by the institutions surveyed were not specifically targeted to students from
an equity background.
METHODOLOGY
A survey of senior staff was conducted to develop understandings of institutional practices relating
to encouraging deferrers and leave takers to return to study. The questionnaire collected high-level
data on the strategic environment, governance arrangements and the details of interventions. A
copy of the questionnaire is included in the report as Appendix 2.
Respondents were targeted using publicly available information from university websites. One senior
staff member was recruited per institution to ensure the responses were representative of the sector
generally. Identifying relevant participants was complicated because the responsibility for deferrers
and leave takers was often split between portfolios. For example, deferral was often viewed as an
issue of recruitment and, therefore, managed by recruitment and marketing departments, while
responsibility for leave takers, who have enrolled as a student, often resided in student success
portfolios.
To address this division, we primarily targeted staff at the Pro Vice-Chancellor level who were listed
as having responsibility for “Students”, “Student Success” or “Education”. These staff were judged
as being senior enough to understand the broader strategic environment within which the issue of
leave-taking is located but also having knowledge (or at least able to enquire with their operational
direct reports) of the interventions their institution had in place. Where no obvious candidate was
apparent from our desktop review, we either targeted staff at a higher level, such as Deputy Vice-

Towards the point of return
41
Chancellors (Education), or senior staff closer to the operational level, such as Executive Directors
working in a field connected to student success.
The survey was conducted using the Qualtrics online survey platform and representatives from all
37 Table A institutions (excluding the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education) were
invited via email to participate in mid-November 2019. Three further reminder emails were sent to
those who had not completed the survey over the next month.
The survey received 15 completed responses, representing a response rate of 40.5 per cent. While
a relatively strong response rate was achieved, the small sample size means that, statistically
speaking, there is likely to be a relatively large margin of error in the results. As such, the analysis
focusses on broad trends identified within the survey and does not make statistical inferences about
the perspectives of all institutions. Nonetheless, the survey received responses from a mix of
institutional groupings, including four Group of Eight (Go8) institutions, two Innovative Research
Universities (IRU) institutions, three Regional Universities Network (RUN) institutions and six
unaffiliated institutions, ensuring the survey sample was relatively representative of the different
perspectives between a range of institutions. In some cases, we examine survey responses
according to these groupings to explore potential differences between institutional types.
STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENT AND GOVERNANCE
Most staff surveyed indicated that encouraging students to return to study was a priority for their
institution. Figure 8 shows that 90 per cent of staff felt that encouraging deferred students to return
was either a ‘high’ or ‘moderate’ priority for their institutions. Slightly fewer respondents indicated
that the conversion of those on a leave of absence was a priority. No respondents indicated that
leave-taking was not a priority for their institution.
Figure 8: To what extent is the conversion of deferrers or leave takers a priority for your
institution?

Towards the point of return
42
When the responses to this question are disaggregated by institutional grouping type, we found that
IRU and RUN institutions were more likely to rate both the conversion of deferred and leave of
absence students as a ‘high’ priority for their institutions, while Go8 institutions were more likely to
rate both as a ‘moderate’ priority or ‘somewhat of a priority’. Such findings are unsurprising given
known differences in the rate of leave-taking and subsequent return based on the ‘status’ of the
institution.
The priority given to the issue of deferral and leave of absence is also reflected by the fact that most
respondents indicated that their institutional strategy documents refer to encouraging leave takers to
return to study. Sixty per cent of respondents indicated that the conversion of deferrers was
mentioned in strategy documents and 67 per cent indicated that encouraging leave takers to return
to study was mentioned.
Most institutions had clear governance and responsibility arrangements in place for the issue of
deferral and leave-taking. Just over 73 per cent of respondents indicated that there was a senior
executive responsible for deferral and leave of absence. Many institutions also had committees with
oversight of deferral and leave of absence, with 67 per cent of respondents indicating there was a
committee responsible for deferral and 53 per cent indicating there was one for leave of absence.
The tracking and monitoring of leave-taking at institutions was found to be variable. Over 60 per cent
of respondents indicated that their institutions have mechanisms in place to track the conversion
rate of leave takers overall, though this reduced to 30 per cent for specific equity cohorts.
Responses suggested that, while leave-taking is generally considered a priority at most of the
institutions surveyed, data and tracking remain limited, particularly for students from identified equity
groups. Limitations of data may potentially affect the range and precision of services and
interventions offered to different student cohorts.
Respondents were also asked to indicate which of the six identified equity groups might be more
likely to engage in leave-taking behaviours. In general, staff perceptions broadly reflected the
findings from our analysis of HEIMS data, which suggested that students from low SES
backgrounds, regional students and Indigenous students were more likely to withdraw from their
studies and struggle to return. Around 67 per cent of respondents identified regional students were
more likely to defer and leave after commencement, while 80 per cent identified Indigenous students
as being more likely to leave after commencement.
Awareness of leave patterns for students from low SES backgrounds was mixed. Most respondents
(80 per cent) indicated that they thought low SES students were more likely to defer their studies.
This broadly aligns with our analysis of HEIMS data that showed low SES students were slightly
more likely to defer an offer but that it wasn’t due to socio-economic status itself. More than 86 per
cent of respondents indicated that low SES students were more likely to leave university after
commencement. These results suggest that there was a slight mismatch between the perceptions of
risk from senior staff and the quantitative evidence on low SES as a risk factor, particularly for
deferral.
To evaluate the awareness of policies around leave-taking we asked senior executives to evaluate
the visibility of these policies for both students and staff. Figure 9 shows that while no senior staff

Towards the point of return
43
rated such policies as “not visible”, comparatively few rated them as “highly visible”. Results suggest
more work may be required to communicate institutional policies.
Figure 9: To what extent do you feel policies and procedures regarding deferral and leave of
absence respectively are visible at your institution?
INTERVENTIONS
The survey collected high level information regarding interventions deployed to help deferrers and
leave takers return to study. As expected, Figure 10 shows that almost all institutions had
interventions in place to encourage deferred students to take up their offer, while 71 per cent said
that interventions were in place for students who took a leave of absence.

Towards the point of return
44
Figure 10: Does your institution have any interventions in place to encourage deferrers
and/or leave takers to return to study?
When responses were further examined by institutional grouping, we found that IRU and RUN
institutions were more likely than Go8 institutions to have interventions in place. Three of the four
Go8 institutions surveyed indicated that they had interventions to encourage deferred students to
return to study, but only one of the four had interventions designed to encourage leave takers to
return to study. By contrast, 100 per cent of both IRU and RUN institutions surveyed indicated that
they had interventions to encourage both deferrers and leave takers to return to study. When
combined with the results from our HEIMS analysis, this suggests that institutional action generally
reflects the scale of the issue at the institution in question.
We also sought responses on the types of interventions conducted by institutions. One of the most
commonly provided services to students who had taken leave from their studies was individual
counselling/consulting, which could include career and academic guidance. Stronger measures,
such as accommodation support and financial assistance, appear to be used relatively infrequently.
Responses to the free text field highlighted the importance of communications as a potential
intervention, with most respondents indicating that they conduct some form of tailored
communication to improve rates of return. The nature and intensity of communications varied across
institutions, and some were found to use multi-channel approaches. In at least one instance,
communication with leave takers had been contracted to external third parties.
At the least intensive level, Electronic Direct Mail (EDM) approaches were commonly used by
institutions to encourage students to return to study and guide them through the process of enrolling
after deferring their offers. These are standardised emails sent to students that included information
regarding policy and procedures relating to taking up an offer after a break and outlining potential
support services for students. The sophistication of the EDM campaigns varied. One institution

Towards the point of return
45
indicated that their EDM campaign was personalised to some extent based on a small number of
student characteristics recorded in their Student Information System.
At least five of the 15 institutions surveyed indicated that they make outbound phone calls to
students who have deferred around the time when they are scheduled to decide about returning to
university. These calls were often made by dedicated teams specifically tasked with supporting
students to succeed at university. Given the relatively high cost of such interventions, they are often
‘rationed’ to certain sub-groups, such as those predicted to have a lower chance of conversion,
equity cohorts, those who failed to respond to earlier EDM communications or students from
particular entry pathways.
The free text responses revealed that the content of these telephone calls included “mapping
institutional process and initiatives” to students, referring students to support services that might
help support their return to study and offering academic advising if a student’s course preferences
had changed during their break. In addition, several institutions indicated social media engagement
and live chat as other methods for communicating with students who had taken leave.
We explored the extent to which interventions were tailored to students from equity backgrounds.
More than half of our respondents indicated that they did not provide tailored support services for
leave takers from equity backgrounds, again suggesting that many institutions do not perceive the
issue of leave-taking as an equity issue. Of the institutions that indicated that they provided tailored
programs for specific equity cohorts, the most commonly cited cohort was Indigenous students,
followed by students with a disability. Relatively few institutions had interventions specifically
targeted to low SES students or regional students. The extent to which institutions were employing
analytics to quantify the likelihood of individual students returning to study, based on behavioural
and predictive indicators beyond geo-demographic tags, was also unclear. Responses suggested
that most communications and strategies were at a broad cohort level rather than tailored to sub-
groups of perceived risk.
The diverse nature of institutional communications and strategies was further highlighted by the
perceived effectiveness of return to study initiatives. Figure 11 shows that many respondents (69 per
cent) indicated that their initiatives were “somewhat effective”. A comparatively small proportion of
respondents indicated that their initiatives were “not effective” but no respondents said their
initiatives were “very effective”. This result largely reflects the broader literature, which suggests that
most institutional interventions intended to improve student outcomes often have a marginal effect
(Oreopoulos & Petronijevic, 2019; Ortagus, Tanner, & McFarlin, 2020). This suggests that rigorous
evaluation is required to feed into a process of continuous improvement to ensure interventions
designed to help students complete qualifications are efficient and effective.

Towards the point of return
46
Figure 11: To what extent do you agree with the following statements regarding the overall
effectiveness of your institutional initiatives to encourage the conversion of deferrers and
leave takers?
Respondents were asked to share what they felt were the biggest constraints on the ability of
institutions to effectively support students to return to study. Figure 12 shows that the most
commonly cited constraint was the lack of workforce (labour) resources able to be deployed to
encourage return to study. A lack of time, financial resources and relevant data were also commonly
cited as major constraints to improving support for leave takers. A lack of leadership support and/or
institutional and government policy were rarely cited as constraints.

Towards the point of return
47
Figure 12: What constraints, if any, exist with regard to effectively supporting deferrers
and/or leave takers to return to study?
Respondents were also invited to list the most commonly faced constraints in a free text field.
Several institutions emphasised the difference between factors that institutions could influence and
those that were beyond control. They suggested that many of the reasons cited for taking a break
from study, such as personal or health issues, were largely external or beyond the control of
institutions. Such responses were consistent with our previous research on the inelasticity of leave-
taking (Harvey et al., 2017). Respondents also indicated that resourcing was the main limitation in
the free text fields, emphasising that many of the interventions highlighted above, particularly call
centres, are resource intensive.
The availability of linked, high quality and timely data on deferral and leave-taking was also cited as
a factor that impaired efforts to improve conversion rates. Institutions were often having to make
pragmatic use of existing systems and resources available to them, rather than fit for purpose
systems to monitor leave-taking and administer interventions. Relatedly, one institution also
emphasised that it was challenging but necessary to ensure communications to students are
consistent and effectively coordinated from an entire institution/student life cycle perspective. In
many cases, communications and advising were provided by separate departments within
universities, with responsibility for deferral often with the marketing departments, and responsibility
for leave of absence and stop outs with the student or student success portfolios.
Several staff suggested greater use of individual case management as one way of improving the
effectiveness of interventions designed to encourage students to return to study. This approach
could include individualised “return to study plans” that could meet the needs of individual students,

Towards the point of return
48
more data and improved understandings on the factors related to leave-taking and return to study
and more sophisticated/efficient communications.

Towards the point of return
49
Senior staff interviews
MAJOR FINDINGS
▪ Interviewees confirmed that most institutions are in a transitional stage, with new
strategies being developed to promote the return to study of those deferring or taking
leave. Communications are becoming more tailored and personalised and more
resources are being directed to manage deferral and leave-taking.
▪ Heightened promotion of return to study and retention relates to constrained financial
environments, student demands, improved data capacity and performance-based
funding incentives.
▪ Use of analytics and student tracking were perceived to be increasing, but data
limitations remained a constraint to more effective interventions to encourage return to
study.
▪ Inflexible course structures, limited cross-institutional cooperation, resourcing and
cultural barriers were highlighted as constraints to effective management of leave-taking
and return to study.
▪ Interviewees highlighted the importance of early support and pre-departure advice to
reduce the prevalence of deferral and leave-taking. Measures included outreach within
secondary schools; early provision of academic and course advice to students
contemplating deferral; and first year transition initiatives to increase students’ sense of
belonging and reduce leave-taking behaviour.
RECOMMENDATIONS
For universities
▪ That universities develop flexible course structures and cross-institutional cooperation to
minimise leave-taking and maximise the potential for students to return to study from
leave.
▪ That universities provide academic and course advice to prospective students
considering deferral, including within secondary school outreach programs
▪ That universities focus on first year transition strategies to increase belonging and
reduce leave-taking behaviour, recognising that recruitment is a long game for many
students.

Towards the point of return
50
INTRODUCTION
Following the institutional survey, a small number of universities were selected to participate in an
in-depth qualitative investigation. The purpose of the interviews was to develop a detailed
understanding of diverse universities’ policies and practices for deferrals and leave of absence. Six
universities were identified and invited to participate in this phase, considering their institutional
status, enrolled students’ demographic characteristics, and available knowledge about their
institutional strategies and interventions obtained from the prior policy review phase. Senior leaders
such as Pro Vice-Chancellors and Executive Directors were asked to provide views on broad
leadership and governance issues; institutional policies governing deferral and leave; specific
strategies and interventions; evidence of effectiveness; and challenges.
Responses suggested that deferral and leave of absence have received increased attention in
recent years, as universities understand the importance of securing enrolments and re-recruiting
students in a difficult financial climate, and as performance-based funding measures are introduced.
Supporting student flexibility was perceived as a high priority, communications strategies were
becoming increasingly sophisticated, and institutions were beginning to use data and tracking of
students to improve the effectiveness of their interventions. Nevertheless, respondents suggested
that the extent to which data was driving strategy remained limited, and there were a range of
cultural challenges. Overall, responses suggested that students who defer and take leave were
becoming a higher priority for most institutions. However, most approaches appeared to be at a
transitional stage, awaiting more sophisticated data capability and greater resourcing to ensure
improved retention of both groups.
METHODOLOGY
Pro Vice-Chancellors (PVCs) of Students (or equivalent) were sent an email invitation for an
interview and asked to recruit another two to three operational staff in their portfolio whom they
considered “good informants” (Spradley, 1979). Of the six universities selected, five were ultimately
recruited, and the final sample of interviewees included two PVCs and 13 team leaders. The
interviews were semi-structured and variations of the interview protocols were developed for senior
executive members (the PVCs) and the department leaders (see Appendix 3).
The interviews took place either face-to-face or online, depending on participant availability and
preference. All interviews were recorded digitally, transcribed, and analysed for content and themes
using NVivo 12 software. A thematic analysis was conducted to identify themes that emerged from
the data and general patterns across participants. In this case, the researchers explored the original
text, coding and reading between the lines to identify events, occurrences and perceptions found to
be conceptually similar in nature or related in meaning, which were grouped into themes or
categories (Creswell & Poth, 2018). A codebook was developed to guide the process of coding
transcripts. Once the coding process was completed, related themes were merged into broader
themes.

Towards the point of return
51
LEADERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE
Priority
Respondents indicated that the issue of deferral and leave of absence had gained more prominence
among universities, regardless of institutional type or the characteristics of students. Many
interviewees reported the increasing complexity of students’ life cycles and its effects on their study
arrangements and learning experiences, which resulted in greater awareness of the issue:
I would say it's having much more visibility, particularly because of our gap year
project that's focussed on regional students’ decision making around post-school
options and when. But prior to that I would have said no, very little visibility. Now
there's definitely awareness or interest in improving things (INTERVIEWEE 4).
I think up until a few years ago, we did almost nothing about it because we are
reasonably in a comfortable position recruitment wise, so it wasn't considered as a
high-profile issue. But as things have tightened up and so on, the group has got
more attention and I know there is a communication strategy with those on leave of
absence (INTERVIEWEE 7).
Despite increasing prominence, efforts to encourage students who deferred or took a leave of
absence to return to study did not appear to be as highly prioritised at all institutions. Institutions with
generally low rates of leave-taking and high rates of return (as evidenced by the analysis of HEIMS
data) appeared to give leave-taking a relatively low priority. However, the advent of performance-
based funding is focussing universities on maximising retention and may increase as more
Government funds are devoted directly to performance against such metrics:
Not at this moment. Not at this university. We haven't identified right now that as a
major issue for us. We usually have fairly good retention, so in fact, retention wasn't
necessarily a key focus, although we do have it as a key focus in terms of how we
can measure our performance. We have it as a performance measurement that we
want to improve our retention, but I don't think we are at a situation where there's
such a crisis for our university (INTERVIEWEE 3).
It has certainly been not necessarily a macro focus, but it's been a micro-focus.
[Leave-taking] was definitely something that we started to focus on a couple of years
ago around recognising that's a cohort that has been flying under the radar and as
I said, we did align some strategies but probably not as much focus as we could put
on that cohort. It's certainly not one of the top priorities right now (INTERVIEWEE
6).
Governance
Growing attention to deferral and leave of absence also manifested in the structural support
established at different universities, although administrative structures varied. In most cases, a
senior executive member was responsible for the overarching institutional strategies used to
encourage students who defer or take a leave of absence to return to their studies, and it was
common practice across the universities that different teams of operational staff worked on a daily
basis on these matters.

Towards the point of return
52
It is important to note that in several of the institutions interviewed, there appeared to be a trend
towards creating more agile organisational structures and this was affecting the management of
deferrals and leave of absence specifically, and student success generally. In the past, responsibility
for various aspects of the student life cycle often fell to different portfolios and it was not uncommon
for teams to work in their own silos with little communication and coordination. Some interviewees
reported that there had been a deliberate recalibration of institutional structures in recent years to
foster collaboration and cooperation to address major issues in student success and experience.
The following example vividly illustrates the structural changes taking place as related to institutional
action of student leave-taking:
We work closely with the division of administrative services. They gather the lists
from the central student database. We'll then proactively do the calls out to the
students connecting them into services. We'll send them a report on these are the
students that were contacted, these were the things that were coming up and so
one of the things we do with our retention when we make calls, we do note what
were the key questions or concerns. We've also started to work more to have more
collaboration across the group that's recruiting students (INTERVIEWEE 6).
POLICY AND PROCEDURE
In response to the increasing flexibility in students’ lives and study arrangements, many Australian
universities have developed visible and transparent policies and procedures for students to follow
when they defer their offer or take a leave of absence during their candidature. The administrative
process for deferrals and leave of absence is, in many cases, automated and students could apply
for either via an online system that individual universities provided.
Visibility and transparency
Most participants agreed that their policies and procedures for deferrals and leave of absence were
visible and easy to understand for staff and students:
It's all self-service and it's all visible to the students. All their options are visible to
them when they log into the system, and they can read what each one of those
things means. It explains if you suspend for one semester or two semesters. Yes,
it's all quite clear (INTERVIEWEE 1).
You would see it on everything, like on unit of study outlines. You would see it on
the first slides at the start of lectures, and things like that. In student mentoring
programs, people would openly sort of talk about that. So that was well known
(INTERVIEWEE 2).
Nevertheless, instances of confusion and/or lack of clarity were noted, and institutions cited that they
were continuing to improve their processes. Some participants noted the need to implement a
regular policy review process given the multiple stakeholders involved and the matrix of
responsibilities:
There are the people who are making the policies and who are discussing the
policies around it, who talk about it semi-regularly (INTERVIEWEE 8).

Towards the point of return
53
The current policies are broad, and a review process is taking place to make the
policies more articulated to both staff and students (INTERVIEWEE 10).
There may be some confusion amongst students, the confusion amongst staff, and
that is the key reason why we're looking at improving the business process
(INTERVIEWEE 11).
Flexibility and practicality
In addition to ensuring that policy and procedures were visible and articulated to students and staff,
participants also gave examples of various measures designed to improve policy responsiveness so
that more flexibility could be granted to individual students in consideration of their various
circumstances and needs. In some cases, policy changes had occurred by centring the student
voice and involving students more directly in the policy and planning discussions. Flexibility included
consideration of different student groups, particularly a perceived need to accommodate the cultural
obligations of many Indigenous students when framing policies around leave of absence.
We had an equal number of students on our steering committee as staff and we had
a very deliberate, student engagement strategy around it and for the first time I had
mature aged students, I had indigenous students, I had really remote students
actually being deeply engaged in the policy review and that meant we started to
understand what was the lived experience of those policies (INTERVIEWEE 6).
The majority of students, if they turn up at our door and want to come back in, we're
going to let them come back… We also offer more flexibility, so that if a student,
life's gotten in the way or they've been caught up with the bushfires or whatever it
is, we allow deferrals for non-deferrable courses, so that's a way we operate some
flexibility too (INTERVIEWEE 12).
Certainly, we know Indigenous students are likely to want, for cultural reasons and
family obligations, time out. Again, it's always that balance of how much time can
you give. There was a Hobsons report done on retention, and that would have been
done I think in 2018 or 17. If you look up the Hobsons suite of reports on retention,
you'll see they did actually recommend that leave of absence should be extended
and much longer than normal kind of year (INTERVIEWEE 14).
Some participants highlighted the limitations of course structures, whose design prohibits multiple
entry and exit points. More commonly, however, was the tension noted between offering greater
flexibility to students and increasing challenges of process management. Respondents noted that
there may be were students are seeking insurance rather than holding a genuine interest in studying
the course deferred.
We are still having those discussions. This is my opinion on the topic. It may tighten
up. I think at the moment we can defer for up to two years. And there's been
examples of people who have been granted additional periods of deferral beyond
that. So, I think that's relatively generous. I could see that tightening up here to be
one year once, which probably fits really nicely in that sort of on-campus deferral

Towards the point of return
54
use case for someone who needs to earn money to generate independence and get
Centrelink (INTERVIEWEE 8).
I think, to be honest, [we’ve] been probably more reasonable than is probably for
the university's benefit. And they've tried to tighten them up a little bit. But the
university’s policies, historically, would have allowed a person to defer, all as much
as 24 months. They could take an offer and they could defer it for two years,
basically. What we discovered was that's very much an outlier compared to other
institutions who generally go 12 or 18 months. We also said a student could basically
defer a second time as well. They could take that same offer and defer again. And
it was very difficult to police and manage, and I think the idea here was we wanted
to be as friendly to our students. We wanted to be as accommodating as possible.
It was like an insurance policy. I'll get an offer from the university and I'll just defer
it. And even though I don't have any intention of studying at the university, it's just
as a placeholder more than anything else just in case I don't get into probably what
would be my preferred institution (INTERVIEWEE 9).
For the student, the bar was super-low. What they had to do is to raise their hand to
defer their offer. It was just a very simple form, basically. And it required very little
of them. It required very little investment or commitment on their part. They didn't
have to set up an account, they didn't have to login. They didn't have to really invest
anything themselves to do that. We're trying to weed out the people who had no
interest in studying here. We deployed this change in January or February of last
year. We made it more of a self-service. It requires the student to then create an
account and a login. We talk to them and treat them as if we expect that they're
going to be studying here. It's not just an automatic that you're going through this.
We expect you're going to study. It raised the bar a little bit. It added this element of
self-service to go along with it (INTERVIEWEE 9).
Consequently, some universities were perceived to be tightening up their deferral processes in
particular and requiring more purposeful activity from students before granting requests for leave.
INTERVENTION AND ENGAGEMENT STRATEGIES
As the issue of student deferral and leave of absence appears to be gaining prominence, with a
number of universities having implemented a wide range of interventions and services to support the
return of students on leave. These engagement strategies may also suggest a shift in the perception
of students who suspend their studies. As we have argued previously, students who withdraw or
take leave need to be seen not as ‘drop-outs’, but instead as alumni, partial completers and
members of the university community (Harvey et al., 2017). Universities appear to be paying more
attention to their cohort of partial completers, known in the US as students with ‘some college, no
degree’, and recognising the financial and reputational importance of engagement.
Institutional responses generally included communication strategies, monitoring and tracking of
students, early retention interventions, transition supports for students returning to study and
referring students to existing student supports. Student communications were the most commonly
discussed intervention and seemed to either underpin or support most other interventions raised by

Towards the point of return
55
interviewees. Other strategies highlighted in the interviews included more inclusive curricula,
academic advisors, micro-credentialing options and a personalised management mechanism.
Communication campaigns
Participants reported various techniques employed to keep connected with students who defer or
take a leave of absence, including emails, text messages, phone calls and postcards. Information
was commonly sent to these student cohorts at different milestones to encourage timely return to
study. The following comments serve as good examples:
So, if you go back three, four, or five years, you would defer from the university and
then we would go quiet and then 12 months from then we'd send you a new offer.
We were missing an opportunity to talk to a deferred student as if they were still part
of the university community. So, what we now have is a series of about three or four
emails that go to a student in the lead up to their new offer so that we can, from a
marketing point of view, replace ourselves in that student's consideration set so that
when they get that new offer from us, it's not the first thing they've heard from us in
12 months. We have got a project about to kick off in the new year where we're
trying to make that campaign a little bit more personalised (INTERVIEWEE 8).
As the census date approaches, we're working with students around what they want
to do with their degrees, and some of them do decide to defer their position, and the
deferral process at the university is that you defer for one year of study. But what
we do is, in the lead up to Semester Two, contact that group of deferrers and reach
out to them, and do a couple of things. One is, let them know that we're holding a
face-to-face event that they're welcome to attend if they'd like to. Secondly, the
process, if they would like to commence their study in Semester Two in the same
course, if it's open, or alternatively, they may have had a change of heart and want
to start in a new degree, tell them the process that they would need to follow to start
in Semester Two in a new degree. We do that through emails, sometimes text
messaging, and also some out-calling as well. There's a small percentage of
deferrers who do decide, "Okay, yeah, I've had Semester One off, now I'm ready to
start, so I'll come back and commence in Semester Two." (INTERVIEWEE 12).
Several interviewees highlighted a change in the nature of communications with students; from
largely bureaucratic language, which was framed by institutional processes and policies, to
language that was student-centric as informed by research in academic fields including psychology.
Again, such language was designed to reduce stigmatisation, promote growth mindsets and
personalise messaging.
Effectively setting up a way to send students regular communication every perhaps
three months or six months or depending on how long they're away. Just checking
in, effectively. It wouldn't be bureaucratic and a long, complicated email, with, dear
student, whatever. You want to be personalised because you can do that now with
artificial intelligence. How are you going? Just checking in. And then also to remind
students if there are deadlines, in case they forget. Oh, just to let you know that
you're due to come back. And what's your thinking around... Do you want to talk to

Towards the point of return
56
the student advisor? That kind of stuff. Just really engaging with them, but not
sending them links to policy, no. No one wants that (INTERVIEWEE 3).
What we've got on the cards coming up is we're revamping all of our
communications because what we found is they're often very administrative and
we've been really interested in the work that's come out of the United States led by
David Yeager which is looking at some of the work from Dweck around growth
mindset and looking at normalising difficulty, framing more growth mindset concepts
into language and that makes a significant difference, the research has shown,
around how students then respond. That's how we're trying to tackle it moving
forward (INTERVIEWEE 6).
Emails and phone calls are used to engage students who take a leave of absence.
A significant change of the communication strategies took place last year to make
the nature of communication shift from administrative to student focussed. The
language was changed to be less bureaucratic and to encourage students to return
to their study. The new communication strategies have been included in
professional development programs for university staff to apply to communications
with all students (INTERVIEWEE 10).
While interviewees felt this renewed language improved the effectiveness of student
communications, there remained limited tailoring of messaging based on data analytics, with
deferrers typically viewed as a group.
Data collection mechanism for deferrals and leave-taking
Many universities appear to be in transition from generic strategies and communications to
responses tailored to individual students. Data analytics were perceived as central to this transition,
with respondents aware of the need to understand the different causes of leave and deferral and the
behavioural predictors of attrition, and design strategies that responded to specific circumstances of
individual students. Most respondents noted that universities were trying to improve their analytics
and ability to provide individualised advice, but that transition was slow given the complexity of the
organisation and the multiple stakeholders involved, from teaching and faculty staff through to
central service staff.
That would be part of the analysis of the data that we use to find out who defers and
why. It will be all part of what we do every year or even more often to look at our
data. How many students are progressing, and it will be part of the full progression
picture (INTERVIEWEE 12).
Having an understanding of why they are deferring and perhaps see whether it's
possible to match them with some form of career and academic advice that perhaps
might help them before they go. It's all pre-emptive. Pre-empting the problem but
also don't wait until you need to react. So, my idea is that you do have to do that
kind of work. Ideally, you want to have a case management approach... Support
them before they go, to understand who they are, why they are doing that and then
follow up with them, it's important moment. Otherwise they'd probably go
(INTERVIEWEE 3).

Towards the point of return
57
Currently, the university is tracking the number of students who take leave of
absence, but not the reason. A new CRM [Customer Relationship Management
System] is due this June, which is assumed to improve the data collection
mechanism and reporting system via collecting more detailed information
(INTERVIEWEE 10).
We do record our data, so we know how many people have deferred each year,
how many are on leave of absence, et cetera, we also have an exit survey that our
planning and analytical services colleagues do. That survey is a telephone survey
of people that have left. It's done every second year or ever year. And that shows
why people have left the university. It's a very short questionnaire, and it's done on
the phone, and it shows clearly that the majority of the reasons are what used to be
called, "Life gets in the way." It's probably the standard stuff that you'd see at every
other university. Finances, family commitments, commitments (INTERVIEWEE 12).
The development of analytics to support interventions was a clear new frontier, particularly in light of
performance-based funding drivers to reduce attrition, and the shift towards student-centred
institutional behaviours.
Some respondents identified specific examples in which the provision of more detailed information
and data could inform tailored communications:
One of the bits of data that we do collect at the time of deferral is the reason that
someone has chosen to defer. And we think there's an opportunity for us to
customise that campaign that they get to include support for those particular
reasons. So, for argument's sake, if someone told us they're deferring for financial
reasons, we might be able to make sure that there's some information about
scholarships in that sort of email series. Same for some of our flexibility
arrangements and some of those other things that we can point at someone who's
having some drama (INTERVIEWEE 8).
Others also noted the need not only to collect data but to manage and translate data effectively and
ethically into action.
I would say from an analytics point of view, our data strategy is probably in desperate
need of a revamping and an update and one of our biggest challenges is our data
systems don't necessarily always talk to each other. We don't have a whole of
university customer relationship management plan and that makes it really difficult
then to look at and to create a full data picture of what's going on. So for example,
we've tried predictive analytics where you get the list of students and what we found
actually is those kinds of strategies when it comes to the intervention, the more
personalized, the more you can connect to students in a way that's relevant to where
they're at, the more that then we notice leads to positive help seeking behaviour.
Simply calling a student from a list we've found hasn't been an effective strategy
(INTERVIEWEE 6)
We do have access to that data but again, it goes back to usage of that data. If
there's a trend that we noticed, we might flag it for the relevant unit or faculty, but

Towards the point of return
58
we don't really do anything beyond that with the data. Structurally the way that
universities are structured around these different service doors, I think that's a major
pain point from a data point of view, having too much data, not being able to use it
well. Another pain point is the way we mobilise and use data to design intervention
strategies, that's been a problem. (INTERVIEWEE 6).
Certainly, I want to be able to make better use of learning analytics to monitor
engagement online, while we're also monitoring engagement on campus. I really
need to understand the percentage of students who are just not engaged and do
not appear to be connected in any way. They are our biggest risk of attrition
(INTERVIEWEE 14).
Again, the complexity of institutions was noted as a barrier to effective use of analytics. Data should
be interpreted wisely and effectively so that they can inform policy making and practice, and records
within different units and departments should be shared to generate more integrated interventions
and services.
Pre-departure interventions
Unsurprisingly, many participants stressed the importance of early interventions, which refer to
initiatives before students make their decision to defer or take a leave of absence. Both researchers
and practitioners have recognised that it is more difficult for universities to bring the students back
once they have left the campus than to prevent them from leaving.
I think that there is a lot of research around increasing the familiarity and belonging.
So, a lot of outreach campaigns seek to build that idea of a cohort, of a sense of
belonging and a sense that you could feel welcome and a part of this place before
you even take up your offer (INTERVIEWEE 4).
If a student's thinking about taking leave, they can, there's a whole automated
process for organising it, but they probably talk with academics about what they're
planning to do. Have some academic advice because there are always academics
who are, there's first year directors, second year directors, there are whole course
directors, there are all sorts of academics that look after people (INTERVIEWEE 1).
I've got two careers counsellors in widening participation. I've had them for eight
years but they work in the field with pre tertiary and so they are experts in taking
people who don't know what they want to do when they grow up and helping them
make a decision and then experts in finding the cheapest, fastest pathways. They
are two different things. One's career counselling, one's pathways advice. And the
second part of that is highly technical because you've got to look at price, you've got
to look at TAFE, you've got to... Because going a university is not the answer for
most people. That's cheaper and better ways to do the thing. We've had to invent
that capacity within the university to deploy it to the conversion group
(INTERVIEWEE 7).
We will sometimes talk to a student who is leaning towards deferring and that's when
we'll have those discussions around some of the support services that are available

Towards the point of return
59
to help them with the reason that they are choosing to defer. It's probably more
aimed at students who we just haven't had a response from and those who are
about to defer and seeing if we can prevent them from deferring. It is quite effective.
We see about 20 percentage points more people who we speak to convert to an
acceptance compared to those we don't. So, that's pretty good for us
(INTERVIEWEE 8).
Once people have made the decision to leave, it can be really difficult to get them
to come back, because they've made that decision. One of the other groups within
the university is the Student Experience Office. And in the lead-up to census day,
they work with what you described as at-risk groups. They do work with a small
focus group of students to reach out to them and offer a very personalised approach
to make sure that they're aware of all the different support services available to them
(INTERVIEWEE 13).
The other thing we've introduced this year is final-year students contacting
transitioning students who are coming in, at the point at which they've accepted the
offer, before they've even enrolled, to welcome them, to find out what was motivating
them to enrol at this university and into that particular program? Also, to find out
what they know about the program, what they know about university life, and flag
any students that appear to be at risk, because they're over-enrolled or they're highly
stressed, concerned about academic literacy, financial ... whatever. Then, getting
their permission to follow those students up (INTERVIEWEE 14).
In addition, at least one of the universities interviewed said their institution was working to
communicate to young people while they were still at secondary school. Communications regarding
both the potential positive and negative outcomes of student deferral was being incorporated into
the broader outreach activities, and were designed to help young people make informed decisions
on deferment or encourage later return.
One piece where we are designing a communications campaign is that supports
regional students’ gap year decision making. Social cost, financial cost, and
indecision are identified as the three major factors impacting regional students’
decision making on transitions to university. And some of those things like a
scholarship app builder, a career finder, subject finder. So there are some online
digital tools and apps that might support that decision making. As well as links to
relevant articles and information that seek to counter that indecision, social cost and
financial cost. And for us the key messaging has been about reframing and
information heavy counterpoints to some of the misinformation or mythologising
about why you might take a gap year, or why you might need to take a gap year.
What it is about ensuring that that package of support information is well-
communicated in our outreach activities, so that it's then equipping students with as
much clear ... So that they can, you know, informed decision making such that if it
is still to defer. The great thing about the conceptualisation I think is that it's also
about ensuring that they stay connected to their goal such that it might make the re-
enrolment more likely (INTERVIEWEE 4).

Towards the point of return
60
Re-engagement and re-recruitment
Several interviewees discussed interventions designed to encourage students who had taken a
break from study to return when their circumstances had changed. This was largely conducted via
telephone calls from student support staff. Leave takers were usually encouraged to consider
themselves as members of the university community and supported in their transition back to study:
We did a proactive reach out to the students within those cohorts. The goal was to
check in on how they're doing, are they thinking about transitioning back and the
goal of that was then to support their transition back so that would often mean then
connecting them to support for learning, like a learning advisor to help them then
proactively manage that transition back (INTERVIEWEE 6).
Nonetheless, participants also noted the limitations in engaging off-campus students:
But certainly from my perspective, the email is not effective. Contacting them via the
portal or learning management is not generally effective. We do however see to
personal emails, because we know when students are not on campus, they're not
checking their university emails necessarily. The preference is always going to be
on campus. They're not often logging in online. They may not be picking up the
phone. Their phone numbers are not even right, or they're out of date so there's
some real constraints just around the logistics of being able to contact students,
even if you had endless resources, and people on the ground able to do intensive
work to connect with them and to keep them on track. There is just that limitation of
if they're not on campus, they're not actively enrolled, it is quite difficult to keep that
communication going. Not from lack of will but lack of a medium to reach them
(INTERVIEWEE 14).
While more research is required, it appears there is some nascent evidence to suggest well
designed and targeted interventions can make a material impact on the re-engagement of students
who have taken a break from study.
Transitional supports and ongoing monitoring
In addition to preventative interventions, participants suggested that the first year is extremely critical
for students’ retention and success and, therefore, universities had implemented various measures
to help students experience a smooth transition and to consistently monitor their progress.
The transition team do conduct two things. One, we have track and connect during
first year and that's a peer to peer thing. We have second year students who come
in and ring students during first year just to check up on how they're going. That's
one program. And then there's the progression program, which we used to call,
staying on track, and that's the process by which we monitor all the students at all
levels, every semester to check on the 50 per cent pass thing. Then those who are
not achieving that are contacted and there's an academic intervention for them
(INTERVIEWEE 1).
I am involved in the development of a new set of online transition modules, which
would be open access to both students and their parents, that seek to support both

Towards the point of return
61
the demystifying of university and key academic skills. It's I think a really good way
once it exists, because it gets you familiar with the actual learning management
system that will be used for all of your courses once you do get there
(INTERVIEWEE 4).
The university last year did welcome calls to all students but we kept the welcome
calls to the equity cohorts because we wanted to frame those welcome calls within
a learner engagement strategy rather than our conversion strategy and what we
found from our data is, the more we align it to our learner engagement strategy, the
more we see positive outcomes in terms of student progression, GPA and
[outcomes] versus, for example, the more generic welcome calls. We look at
academic performance. We look at progression rates and things like that
(INTERVIEWEE 6).
It's not a recruitment exercise, it's a welcome call. And we also phone up every
Indigenous student, every Pacific student, every lower SES student, we've got the
cohorts, everyone from one of their target schools. Those welcome calls are meant
to prevent poor choice making. People say, Oh, I got into nursing, but now I don't
know if I want to be a nurse. We can sort of get them some help about that
(INTERVIEWEE 7).
I think it's true to say that what we are doing here is that constantly supporting
students ... find out first of all what's gone wrong. So many times, they just didn't
apply for withdrawal without academic penalty. So often, it's not too late to then
support students to take leave, at that point in time, and get that documentation
reversed, so that they don't have that on their records. It's as much about being
proactive in supporting students to recognise when they should take leave as it is
about following up students who are on leave, because if we miss ... we're not
attentive to why students are failing, we miss the opportunity to support students
who just don't know when it's appropriate to take leave (INTERVIEWEE 14).
For students who took a leave of absence and resumed their studies later, their return was viewed
as a vital transition and universities recognised the importance of providing necessary supports
during this period to help students re-establish their sense of belonging:
What we're looking at then is a bespoke program for students who are returning
from study. We're actually just putting that in place now and that will be linked into
a learning campaign so that'll be one of the, again, we want personal reach out
(INTERVIEWEE 6).
That's the other thing, celebrating success, as well. We often peg this on the
students who are failing, but it's really important to ... for those students who've
returned, check how they've gone at the end of the semester, give them a call and
say, "Hey, congratulations, I see you got three credits and an HD, that's awesome,"
but if they've had a fail, "You did really well in these. What do you think went wrong
with this one? Can we help you address that?" (INTERVIEWEE_14).

Towards the point of return
62
Referring system
According to some interviewees, a good referring system was essential for universities to achieve
desirable outcomes through the support services. A pre-requisite for a good system was knowledge
of the various reasons students defer or take leave:
I think sometimes the issue is if we haven't found out why a student is deferring, if
we haven't kind of had that sort of almost one on one contact, it's tough to point
them towards the right sort of support (INTERVIEWEE 8).
There is a general trend towards recognising that interventions for specific issues,
such as leave-taking but also special consideration, remission of student debt etc…
are part of an ecosystem of interactions between students and institutions. The
university is seeking to join up those interactions so there is consistency. For
example, a student who cites financial hardship as part of a special consideration
request is put in touch with an advisor who may be able to help with a scholarship
or a bursary. The new CRM is central to this new approach (INTERVIEWEE 10).
Other interventions and support services suggested
In addition to existing interventions and services, broader engagement strategies were suggested
such as case management, academic advisors and the development of a more inclusive and flexible
curriculum, including recognition of diversity and the introduction of nested awards, micro-
credentials and unbundled offerings:
I do think in terms of inclusive curriculum design and inclusive teaching practice, it's
one of the most powerful ways to build a culture in which diversities are celebrated,
and that it builds a culture where lack of cultural safety, in terms of having come
from an experience that isn't the dominant experience of your peers
(INTERVIEWEE 4).
I find that very interesting because I've come from a Canadian university and that
would identify me in the data but in Australia there's no such thing as academic
advisors and in North America, if you have a difficulty with a course, there's a
specific team that you go to and here there's a lot of focus on course planning, which
is really different than a developmental advising model and I think that's where... I
think a lot of our students fall between, especially the low SES fall between the
cracks (INTERVIEWEE 6).
A case management approach will allow us, as an institution, to do more nuanced
interventions. We're not there yet, but it has been identified as something that we
do want to do, so watch this space (INTERVIEWEE 11).
EVIDENCE OF EFFECTIVENESS
As highlighted in the literature review, concrete evidence of the effectiveness of many initiatives
remained limited and further research is required in this area. Nonetheless, several informants
spoke generally about the effectiveness of their programs and the fact that even a small
improvement in rates of return to study can financially justify interventions. Universities reported that

Towards the point of return
63
research was being conducted as programs were developed and matured to provide impact
evidence.
We treated it as a kind of action research. The students who returned were
monitored and connected with throughout their remaining journey, to work
collaboratively with them as a students as partners kind of approach to identifying
where things were going off the rails again. Not so much as, "What have you done
wrong?" But, "What have we not done to best support your completion in the second
round?", so that we can dynamically change processes on the fly, informed by the
students' experience in their second attempt (INTERVIEWEE 14).
In at least one case, respondents were able to point to evaluations that had been undertaken which
showed the demonstrable effectiveness of interventions designed to encourage students to return.
The re-engagement strategy made a big difference. We brought back 368 students.
I haven't got the exact figures, but it was around that number. About 40 I think, by
the time I left, had disappeared again. However, the vast majority were well on track,
and I think there was about 20 completions already by the time I left. A couple of the
students were already on their second degree (INTERVIEWEE 14).
CONSTRAINTS AND CHALLENGES
Participants were asked about the constraints that hinder universities from developing better
engagement strategies, which manifested across three broad aspects: resources, technical and
cultural/philosophical.
Resource constraints
Lack of resources was a common constraint reported, as illustrated by the following comments:
Resources is our biggest one. I think. Deferrals aren't as important to us as students
who we still have a chance to secure for this session. There are some people here
who will put their hand in the heart and say, "Okay, we'll just see them next year."
And we know that that's often not the case, but it's easier than the alternative and
you can move on to the next student who you haven't got a decision from and try
and get them to accept an offer. I think we don't have sufficient resources to do all
the things we'd like to across the entire conversion funnel. So, deferrals rate lower
on that list than some other groups (INTERVIEWEE 8).
I think the case management approach is the only effective way of managing this
issue, for both students when they're in the university and also when they're out, so
there's actually much more nuanced information and actually, a much more
personalised approach. That approach is reasonably expensive in terms of
resources and skill level of people (INTERVIEWEE 11).
Technical challenges

Towards the point of return
64
Some interviewees also highlighted technical challenges, such as limited accessibility to data, a lack
of data literacy and an absence of a digital platform to collect student data to provide tailored
support.
Well, the major challenge that we have at the moment, we are working on, is the
digital, the platform that we need to use to engage with students in their kind of
personal scale. It will be great if we had a way for students to tell us who they are
through some survey that then predicts steps or using artificial intelligence. And at
the student portal where the student goes in and finds all the information is user
friendly, but also placed where then we can use and make suggestions for students,
give advice in that kind of artificial intelligence, using predictive analytics and so on.
That's a work in progress, because you need to find the right platform, you need to
understand how you're going to be able to service that. Is it going to be through
providers? Is it going to be something you build? (INTERVIEWEE 3).
That's actually a broader issue that I'm tackling right now is that I don't have ready
access to a lot of data that I need so I would say, and that's part of, we've just gone
through a data restructure. I think the other bit is I'm not sure the faculties have
access to the data that they need around that cohort either so that's come up as an
issue (INTERVIEWEE 6).
I don't think we are for want of at least potential data. Are the right people aware of
it? Are the right people able to get access to that data? Do they know who to ask for
that? There's another area that's very much oriented just towards managing our
data, full stop, all of it. They report that data to the DVCs and to heads of schools,
but they are not engaged. They're not academics. They're not working in a faculty
or a school. They are working in a data warehouse (INTERVIEWEE 9).
The other pain point would be data literacy and again, the people who often have
the data are not the people who are necessarily navigating the leadership around
the intervention or the analysis of the data, but they own the data. And a complete
lack of data literacy among staff to use data, to capture data, to look at what are the
kinds of outcomes we're trying to achieve. I find that what the government is doing
in terms of very blunt instruments, we're not asking I think the right questions around
things like learner, self-efficacy, motivation, sense of all the things that the literature
tells us is important (INTERVIEWEE 6).
Interviewees gave a sense that there has been a shift in approaches to using analytics in these
situations but it will take time for universities to address these challenges. Appropriate professional
development programs would help to improve staff skills regarding interpretation and use of data.
Cultural and philosophical change required
At the overarching level, many participants argued that a cultural and philosophical change was
required to respond to the increasingly diversified student body. The current model on which
universities operate was perceived as not fitting the needs of today’s students. Existing models were
perceived to be unable to address the complexity of student life circumstances through flexible
delivery. There was broad awareness among the educational practitioners involved in this study of

Towards the point of return
65
the increasingly varying patterns of enrolment and the non-linear journey to degree completion.
Fortunately, a considerable number of interviewees displayed a positive attitude toward this change,
and had a broad view of student success:
There is some idea that if you're not on a linear school to university pathway that
there's somehow a negative association or a deficit, either in the experience of
school or in the influences around you or in the university, outreach programs were
ineffectual because so many of those Year 12 students actually aren't enrolled the
following year at university. I think that that is problematic because it isn't a longer-
term broad perspective view around different journeys to higher education. I think if
we're serious about having a whole of life cycle approach to supporting students to
make the choices that are best for them, then being able to defer and then come
back should be one of those, and not seen as the thing that we have to work with
students, because it's the less desirable option (INTERVIEWEE 4).
Ultimately, it's about supporting student diversity and supporting student success,
whatever that looks like. For some students that may not be graduating from this
university. There may be other pathways. But if we're not even engaging with them,
we will never know. Whether the students that have left because there are other
options available that are better suited to their career plans, and their experience of
this university, or those that deferred ... they've got a better job offer, life is good. It's
equally the long term, I think. It's also about leaving that door open. I guess
reminding them that, while that really shiny new job with the good salary is looking
pretty attractive now, there are ways that you could study part-time. We're
introducing a lot of short, micro-credential type qualifications increasingly. I guess
also alerting students who choose not to return, who have deferred, that there are
other things we could offer you, and if you want us to keep in touch, let us know.
We'd be happy to follow up with you and see how you're going. You'd be very
welcome to re-apply down the track. Don't forget that it's great to have that
employment pathway and great decision, you've found a job that you're really
excited about, but it's about that lifelong learning, and you may find that you do need
to have that other suite of qualifications behind you, as you progress through
promotions and your career path. It's playing that long game (INTERVIEWEE 14).
To expand access and enable a diversity of student journeys required substantial commitments from
everyone in the university community in every respect from course structure to campus culture:
I think that we're operating in a higher education model that was fit for purpose 25
years ago, but it's not so much fit for purpose now. If you're coming from a diverse
range and a different background, we're still expecting them to turn up on campus,
generally speaking, to do four topics a semester, in a traditional delivery model, et
cetera (INTERVIEWEE 11).
The coordination between different professional teams and faculties was also critical to a holistic
approach to engage students, particularly those who had suspended their studies. Participants
noted the importance of coordination between professional and academic staff, but also barriers and
challenges to such coordination:

Towards the point of return
66
Even though there was a lot of focus on those partnerships, what I found is the
culture isn't necessarily there in faculties, so again we've tried to bring the student
support teams into the faculties to build their relationships… I find a lot of
intervention strategies are, especially in the central support areas, disconnected
from the student's course experience.
I'm seeing that there are two predominant discourses that are emerging in higher
education. One of the discourses is around tiered service models and the notion of
a centralised service, one stop shop. A lot of universities have modelled themselves
on banks or other external businesses and then there's the other thread which is
around the concept of partnership and more collaborative approaches and I actually
think you need both.
I think the service one has become a lot louder and it's getting a lot more resulting
and versus the partnership model which is where you work with faculties to co-
design. Because what I found is the more it goes back to basic, the more relevant
and timelier the support is, and you cannot get relevant and timely without
partnership with faculties. So I think strategies that sit where the student success
team sits centrally and has no contact with or very little contact with faculties is a
really problematic model (INTERVIEWEE 6).

Towards the point of return
67
Partner institution case studies
MAJOR FINDINGS
▪ Institutions are seeking to support students across the life cycle, including through pre-
departure advice, communications to students on leave, and support for students
returning to study.
▪ Universities sometimes face tensions between supporting student flexibility and
maintaining institutional priorities and objectives.
▪ Students themselves are becoming increasingly involved in governance and the
determination of processes related to deferral and leave-taking.
▪ Efforts are increasing to contact students intending to withdraw and students who have
withdrawn. Specific campaigns have resulted in more students taking a formal leave of
absence, continuing their study or returning to study. Translating these specific
campaigns into mainstream practice remains a challenge at some institutions.
▪ Interviewed students had typically deferred or taken leave for family, financial and/or
health reasons, as well as uncertainty of their choice of course. This uncertainty was
identified as a barrier to returning to study along with perceived course inflexibility, loss
of financial support and lack of university support.
▪ Students consistently advocated more active outreach from universities to students on
periods of leave or deferral. They also advocated specific initiatives for students
returning from leave, who have often lost touch with their initial study cohort.
Suggestions included a buddy system and greater support to ‘re-orient’ returning
students.
▪ Leave-taking can significantly affect official reporting on attrition. At one institution, more
than half of the students on an approved leave of absence were counted as ‘attrited’ and
this is likely to be a common trend. At another institution, a block model teaching
approach undermines the existing calendar year approach to measuring retention.
▪ Indigenous students often withdraw for medical and/or financial reasons and may be
deterred by unconscious bias, cultural disconnect and racism on campus.

Towards the point of return
68
RECOMMENDATIONS
For universities
▪ That universities elevate the student voice in developing strategies to minimise
withdrawal, and to increase the rates of return to study from leave.
▪ That universities provide more active outreach to students on periods of leave or
deferral, including tailored advice around course choice and transfer options, financial
assistance, and health and support services.
▪ That universities develop re-orientation strategies for students returning to study from
leave, such as peer ‘buddy’ systems and academic support.
▪ That universities include in their Indigenous strategies specific initiatives to address the
high rates of leave and non-return of Indigenous students. Such strategies could
consider and monitor the impact of unconscious bias, racism, financial disadvantage,
and the curriculum on Indigenous leave-taking and return to study behaviour.
For government
▪ That the Australian Government create and report an additional student
achievement/success measure which reports the proportion of students who return to
study after a period of absence. A similar statistic is currently reported by the UK’s
Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA).
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of these case studies is to allow for a detailed examination of the subject of study in its
real-life context (Yin, 2014). The characteristics of the study profile at these universities make them
ideal research sites to investigate deferral and leave-taking issues. A major strength of case study
data collection is the opportunity to use multiple sources of evidence (Yin, 2014) that allow the
development of converging lines of inquiry. Thus, case study findings or conclusions are likely to be
more convincing and accurate because it is based on several converging sources of information
(Yardley, 2009). In the five case studies that follow, a range of empirical methods have been
deployed to provide in-depth data to supplement the analysis of HEIMS data, the survey of
university staff and the semi-structured interviews with staff from selected institutions. The case
studies include custom quantitative analysis of internal datasets, analysis of internal documents, as
well as interviews with both staff and students.
UNIVERSITY A CASE STUDY
Introduction
This case study presents a detailed examination of approaches to supporting low SES student
retention at University A, a regional Australian university with campuses or study centres located
across Australia. Half of the students enrolled at the university are studying part-time and almost two
thirds are studying externally/online, although this varies between disciplines.

Towards the point of return
69
The student population at University A is highly diverse when compared to the Australian university
sector. Most of the student population are mature age (74 per cent), female (69 per cent), are first in
family to attend university and have significant family and work commitments. The student
population includes regional students (56 per cent compared to 19 per cent nationally); students
from remote locations (11 per cent as compared to less than 1 per cent nationally); Indigenous
students (8 per cent as compared to less than 2 per cent nationally); and students from low SES
backgrounds (18.7 per cent as compared to 17.7 per cent nationally) (Department of Education,
Skills and Employment, 2019b).
At University A, 73 per cent of all domestic students belong to one or more target equity group: low
SES, non-English speaking background, students with disabilities, regional or remote or Aboriginal
and/or Torres Strait Islanders. Belonging to an equity group places a student at higher risk of
attrition (Edwards & McMillan, 2015), hence University A has well-developed infrastructure
comprising academic and other support services for all students – as well as services that target
specific equity cohorts – in order to enhance student access, retention, engagement and success.
The University recognises that it can strategically develop and deploy further initiatives to improve
student retention and re-engagement rates. Some strategies are linked to a significant restructure
that has taken place at University A over the past few years. Structural change has resulted in:
• New academic departments and integrated research centres;
• Centralised administrative systems and operational structures;
• Staffing structures that enable decision making to devolve to colleges;
• New staffing positions, including those focussed on student retention;
• Substantial recruitment of staff at senior management levels;
• Significant investments in academic interventions designed to improve student outcomes.
Against this background, this case study examines patterns of deferral and leave-taking at
University A using data from a range of sources:
• Analysis of internal statistics, including enrolment and deferral data;
• A desktop review of institutional documents about deferral and leave of absence including
policies and procedures, governance structures and roles, strategies and plans;
• Interviews with academic and professional staff at the University with formal and informal
responsibilities for deferring or leave-taking; and
• Interviews with students who have taken time out from study and have returned or are
planning to return to the University.
Analysis of institutional data
Student retention
University A is positioned amongst the bottom tier of Australian universities in terms of student
retention (Department of Education, Skills and Employment, 2019). This positioning is due in part to
the way retention is measured by the Federal Government, as students retained from one year to
the next, which does not necessarily match with student enrolment patterns at University A. These
patterns are interesting but also generally common to the sector; higher attrition not because of a

Towards the point of return
70
definitional issue but simply because like some other universities, University A has more at-risk
students. Indeed, market research conducted by the University in 2009 and 2010 indicated that
more than two thirds of non-retained students felt connected to the University and intended to return
to study. More recently, an exit survey of students who withdrew from all units of study in semester
2, 2019 found that 88 per cent intended to re-enrol at University A in the future. This aligns with
national level research that ‘around half of the students who withdraw from higher education return
to the sector within eight years’ (Harvey, Szalkowicz & Luckman, 2017, p. 9)
Retention rates have remained relatively stable across the university sector over the past decade
and improved retention will require universities to respond to the causes of attrition based on their
individual contexts. Chief Executive of Universities Australia, Catriona Jackson, has stated that
universities need ’to dig into the causes, ask who is leaving university before completing their
degree and why?’ (Jackson, 2016). At University A retention data and patterns of enrolment reflect
the nature of the student population, which includes a large proportion of high-attrition-risk students
who belong to one or more equity groups, are studying part-time and are mature age. University A
has put in place a range of services to support the retention of these students while acknowledging
that ’much of student attrition is either unpredictable or inevitable’ (Harvey, Szalkowicz & Luckman,
2017, p. 9) and is linked to a range of personal, financial and health issues.
Deferral
Analysis of HEIMS data conducted as part of this project shows that University A has a deferral rate
of 7 per cent, which is lower than the national average of 9 per cent. The analysis of HEIMS data
also shows that the proportion of non-returners (those who deferred but did not return to higher
education) was 57 per cent, much higher than the national average of 36 per cent. In order to
improve the conversion rate from deferral to enrolment, admissions officers at University A contact
students twice during the year they have deferred, once in April to confirm the deferral and again
towards the end of the year to encourage students to enrol for the following year.
Most students who defer and do not go on to enrol are mature aged, female, and applied to study in
the most popular course offered by the university. A staff member stated that many of these
students “romanticise the career” and decide not to enrol when they are faced with the reality of on-
campus study blocks and unpaid but required professional placements that take them away from
their families. In contrast, school leavers, who make up only a small percentage of the deferrals at
University A, are most likely to convert their deferral to enrolment after a gap year.
Leave of absence
Analysis of national HEIMS data collected for this project indicated that University A had a much
higher rate of leaving, 43.6 per cent, compared to the national average of 22.1 per cent within the
first two years of student enrolment. The University also had a slightly lower rate of leavers returning
to study. In total, 22 per cent of students who had left the University had returned to study within two
years, compared to the national average of 28 per cent. Given the higher levels of leave and lower
rates of return, the University is actively working to improve engagement with its students to prevent
them leaving in the first instance and encouraging them to return in the second.
Institutional oversight of deferring and leave of absence students

Towards the point of return
71
While institutional oversight of students who defer or take a leave of absence from University A is
situated within a central portfolio of student engagement, leadership in monitoring and supporting
these students back to study is distributed (formally and informally) across the University, in central
units, in colleges, through Indigenous support services and by individual academics. Practices for
supporting students back to study looks different in each of these institutional locations, driven by
the different role-related responsibilities of staff and the nature of the contact and relationships they
have with students.
One of the challenges at University A is to improve the flow of information and coordinate the
initiatives for student re-engagement that are planned or taking place across the University. As
noted by one staff member, the links between the central services and colleges and other services
that support students is relational but needs to be systematised.
Central governance and leadership
Responsibility for student progression at University A is situated centrally within a student
engagement and success portfolio, which hosts a team of administrative officers who manage
student progression, including involuntary exclusion. The portfolio has developed a student retention
strategy that is currently progressing through a consultation phase. The initiative articulates a
university-level student retention strategy with access, equity and inclusion projects designed to
position engagement with students as the catalyst to retention.
Successful engagement relies on building relationships with students and not simply processing
transactions or providing support in a reactive manner. The ability to identify, understand and
connect with individual students – beyond a cohort lens – is critical to authentic and productive
engagement. The identification of students will be aided by what one staff member in the portfolio
describes as “new money” available as part of 2019 Higher Education Funding to increase university
capacity to collect and track student data. These data will support the targeting of initiatives related
to student retention and re-engagement.
Once students have taken time out from their studies, the progression team takes responsibility for
contacting students to provide them with information about re-engaging with their studies. One
initiative articulated in the student retention strategy is to develop an ‘active management plan for
periods of intermission, keeping students within the community and motivating them to return and
complete’”. Aligned with this initiative, a re-engagement campaign started in 2019. This phone
campaign differs from previous initiatives in that it promotes building relationships with students,
requiring an investment in staff training and buy-in from the retention officers making the calls. Prior
to the start of Semester 1 2020 progression officers aimed to contact 1,300 lapsed students. The
progression officers involved were provided with recent details of students’ progression status prior
to making the phone call. Staff were trained to use a script to navigate conversations with students.
Data from the re-engagement campaign, including the conversion rate of inactive students into
enrolments are not available. However, student case data gestures to what was achieved and some
of the issues with the process that need to be refined. A student, Geoffrey, had been excluded from
study for 12 months as a result of progression issues due to work, family, carer and financial
obligations pressing on him. Geoffrey had independently decided to return to study in 2020 at the
end of his exclusion period and had re-enrolled in his course in February 2020. A brief message was
left on Geoffrey’s phone in late February, in the week just prior to semester start, advising him to

Towards the point of return
72
“call back about his enrolment”. This message left him anxious and worried that there was a problem
with his enrolment. The caller left a phone number and a first name. He returned the call three or
four times but as there was no answer the calls were diverted to the main switchboard. He did not
know who had called him or what the call was about so the switchboard could not redirect his call. A
day later he received a follow up call and the issue was resolved, however, he was frustrated and
annoyed that the call was made without checking on his current enrolment status: “I’ve re-enrolled.
Can’t you see that?” (Student).
This incident illustrates the complex logistics involved in enrolling, the lag time between action and
overnight or weekly updates of digital databases, as well as the gaps still apparent in initiatives to
contact students. From Geoffrey’s point of view a phone call about re-enrolment would have been
more useful months, rather than days, before semester started as he had arranged his family and
employment commitments many months earlier in order to be able to start the semester.
College or discipline-based initiatives
As well as central functions and responsibility for student engagement and progression, the
restructure established positions in the colleges that complemented or overlapped with central
functions related to student engagement and success. All colleges appointed Education Support
Officers (ESOs) or similar at the operational level, as well as some senior academic appointments,
to lead innovation and research in student experience.
Indigenous support initiatives
Targeted support services for Indigenous students are separate to but complement the central
student services, however, there is no formal linkage between these areas. Contact between the
Indigenous student support officers and central services is on an as-needs basis and often to do
with involuntary student exclusion.
The Indigenous student support officers aim to contact all enrolled Indigenous students twice a
semester. At the start of semester, the contact is focussed on ensuring that students have a
manageable unit load, are not overextended, and are aware that they can withdraw from units
without academic or financial penalty if they do so before census date. An Indigenous support officer
commented that taking time off when needed was a healthy approach for students in managing their
work-life balance. The officers also make phone calls to lapsed Indigenous students, however this is
hampered by out of date contact information.
A concern articulated by Indigenous support officers about student progression is that students need
to meet certain study load requirements (characterised by enrolment in either 3 or 4 units in any
given semester) in order to obtain federal financial support to study. This creates a tension for
students who may be overextended and who would have a better chance to achieve academic
success with a part-time load.
The Indigenous student support officers have retention initiatives targeted towards Indigenous
students. One initiative is to send text messages to students at regular intervals during semester
containing interesting and relevant information. A bulk messaging service is used, and the tone of
the messages is informal: “check out the…”. This approach is intended to support external students
to feel engaged with the University.

Towards the point of return
73
Another recent initiative is an online site for Indigenous students which was created within the
University’s learning management system. This site focusses on enhancing retention by reducing
the social isolation experienced by external students. The site was piloted in Semester 2 2019 and
had low activity due to limited promotion. Although the site appeared as an option in the students’
lists of formally enrolled units, many ignored it as they did not know what it was. In 2020 the site will
be promoted more heavily to students and its usage and impact will be evaluated.
Academic practices
According to an academic staff member, “lecturers are not included in the administrative process” of
student progression. However, many lecturers have close relationships with their students and are
approached by them for advice about progression and taking a leave of absence. One academic
staff member indicated that it was not clear what the role of the academic is in terms of providing
advice to students but noted that “the Uni [centralised services] offers less personalised support
than what we can provide”. There were also academic staff concerns about the lack of information
flow from central services about students who were being actively monitored and had been excluded
from the University for progression issues.
The distributed practices and initiatives for student progress and progression at University A in
different organisational locations indicate a culture of support for students as well as a fluidity
between formal and informal operations roles and responsibilities in the organisational structure.
Some areas have developed their own “emerging systems” for keeping track of students and their
progress but there is a clear need for systems and processes that facilitate knowledge exchange
between organisational locations and streamline the different types of advice and support that are
provided to students into a single narrative.
Practices relating to extended leave
Policy and procedure regarding deferral and leave-taking
There are a variety of views from staff and students at University A about the visibility of policies and
procedures around leave-taking. One staff member indicated that policies and procedures linked to
progression ‘happen to students’ rather than being promoted to students in ways that are clear and
accessible. This staff member suggests that a flow chart with time frames would assist in clarity
around progression. This same staff member suggested that the student orientation to the University
should include the message that it is okay for domestic students to take their time, and to take time
off study, although it must be remembered that in the long term this may affect the currency of unit
content completed for degrees in law, nursing, education and social work and similarly regulated
professions.
Visibility of progression information is a concern and impacts on how students take time off study. A
staff member indicated “students may not know the process or know it well”. This is evident in
student approaches to taking time off. Mary did not go through any formal process to take time off
study. She said, “I was still struggling with my finances so I stopped”. Malcolm, a student who failed
all the units in his first semester of study in what was a “hectic, messy year” disengaged from his
studies and did not submit any assignments but stated: “I didn’t know I could withdraw”. He did not
respond to the email he received to ‘please explain’ his unsatisfactory progress which resulted in his
exclusion from the University for 12 months.

Towards the point of return
74
At University A students who take time out from study do so voluntarily or involuntarily.
Voluntary time out from study takes two forms:
• Intermission: Students can apply to suspend or take a break from their studies while
reserving a place in their course by applying for an intermission, usually for a period of 6 or
12 months. Intermission is only available to students who have completed at least one unit in
their course. If a student does not re-enrol or apply for an intermission by the relevant census
date, the University then considers the student lapsed from their course and the student is
required to reapply in order to continue their studies.
• Non-enrolment: Students informally take leave by not re-enrolling. When a student does not
re-enrol, or apply for an intermission, the University considers the student as inactive and
after a determined time then lapses the student. Once lapsed, the student needs to apply
again for university admission.
Involuntary time out is referred to as exclusion. Students may face involuntary exclusion from the
University for a period of 12 months as a result of making unsatisfactory progress as determined by
the University progression procedures.
Exclusion from the university has negative connotations, however, it can also act as a release valve
for students. For Malcolm, having time off study through involuntary exclusion “was like a weight
was lifted” and his decision to re-enrol a year later was made with a greater understanding of the
study requirements and the time commitment needed to engage successfully at university.
Taking time off – attempts to improve the experience
Research indicates that the factors that lead a student to take time off study are different depending
on whether the student belongs to an equity group or not.
The reasons noted more commonly by equity-group students than other students
revolve around finance, family obligations and core issues relating to ‘getting by’,
whereas the issues noted more commonly among advantaged students than equity
group students centre around issues of ‘choice’ and lifestyle. (Edwards & McMillan
2015, p. vi)
Finance is a factor that comes through strongly in student interviews at University A as a reason for
taking time off study. Joan enrolled at the university in 2017 and decided not to continue after the
first year as the financial struggle was too much. In 2019, when she completed her tax return, Joan
discovered that she owed the Government around $4,000 and rather than return to study needed to
continue to work in order to pay this off. The debt was accrued unbeknown to her when a
Government cadetship she had been granted in 2017 was back paid and crossed over with her
study-related Centrelink payment. Joan needs to pay off this debt before she returns to study or else
she will “be working for the rest of my life to repay it”.
Students at University A also indicated that they had experienced issues with facilities, with other
students and administrative staff that had prompted them to take time off study. Mary indicated that
the accommodation she was housed in during residential blocks required for her course was
substandard and she was not successful in having the issue resolved. For Joan, issues with another

Towards the point of return
75
student who was “not a nice person” contributed to her decision to take time off study: “It was not a
good environment…. I didn’t want to put up with that”.
According to a staff member, students often take time off study, voluntarily or involuntarily, because
they lack information about what is involved with university study. “Uni is sold as a career and the
course you need to get there” but some students enter without fully understanding what that course
is about, what the study requirements are and how those requirements, such as unpaid placements,
may impact on them financially.
Return to study for these students requires attention to the specific reasons they took time off and
identification of solutions to support their return. While some of these solutions are related to
personal issues, students also identified a range of structural issues within the University that impact
on the student experience.
Communications and engagement
Engagement with students through communication and relationships are core to the University
retention strategy (still in its consultation phase). To this end, progression staff indicate that
“students leave at different stages of their courses, so we have different projects happening at
different levels”.
The re-engagement campaign at the University is a model of how engagement with students can
continue even as they take time off study. The approach of the campaign is driven by positive and
optimistic staff who understand the shift in their roles from process driven to engaging meaningfully
with students. Communication with students is guided by a script to ensure consistency in the
message they give. This approach is intended to move away from a tick box approach and towards
one where progression officers engage positively with students. Indeed, the re-engagement
campaign intentionally aims to shift the negativity associated with taking time out, particularly when it
is linked to involuntary exclusion, and shift the communication about re-engagement and
progression to a positive conversation.
A challenge to this ‘communicative’ approach is the expectation of some students that the person
calling them will know it all. To counter this, progressions officers have information about a range of
services to which they can refer students, such as academic literacy programs, access and inclusion
services, counselling and IT support.
While a range of excellent services exist at University A, staff involved in those services as well as
students, indicate that they have limited visibility. One staff member observed that “the message
about all these services is not getting through”. In addition to having information about the services
on the University website, the staff member suggested that students enrolling in the University for
the first time, as well as those returning to study after taking time out, should be provided with a
welcome pack containing information about the available services. This direct approach may better
communicate the availability of services to students who need it and avoid students’ comments such
as “I wasn’t given information about a counsellor”.
Support services
As identified in the previous section, the University has a range of excellent academic and support
services for students. The services are available to students face-to-face and online. These services

Towards the point of return
76
include staff and student led initiatives. In terms of peer programs, online peer assisted support is
available in certain units with high student enrolments. The retention strategy promotes initiatives
such as first term ‘study buddies’ for at-risk students and peer mentoring support to enhance social
connections. As one student noted, having student representatives more visible would also provide
students with a friendly point of connection with the University.
Constraints against better engagement
The constraints at University A against better retention, progression, and engagement with students
are limited data to support decision making, inadequate systems (or use of systems) to support the
cohesion of initiatives that are taking place across the University, and lack of clarity around roles and
responsibilities for providing advice and support given to students.
One concern raised at the University is the lack of hard data about conversion of student deferrals
into enrolments that would allow better targeting of re-engagement strategies. A staff member
advised “we have no particular research” to substantiate the approaches that are being taken to
student re-engagement after deferral. There is also a lack of data on students who are returning to
university and consequently a lack of targeted support services for those students. One staff
member indicated that if there was a way in which they could identify students who were returning to
study after involuntary exclusion they would be able to welcome those students back, acknowledge
the strength it takes to come back to study, and support them better. Another staff member said “we
don’t know who these students are who take time off study. We don’t have that information”.
There is overlap across organisational units with respect to who is responsible for student re-
engagement and a range of staff in different roles who are engaged in initiatives to support student
re-engagement as part of their formal or informal responsibilities. In one college a senior staff
member advised his concern about the overlapping responsibilities of ESOs in colleges and
progression officers in the central office. In his college there was push back from ESOs about
making phone calls to lapsed or inactive students: “If [the ESO] is doing it student central is not
doing it. We need to push the relationship back to central”. However, staff advised that in
interactions between the ESO and students, the ESO was able to deal with complex issues related
to students’ study plans that could not have been dealt with by progression officers in the central
office. The different roles and relationships that staff have with students across the University are
important to student retention, progression and re-engagement but could be better supported by
improved systems for communication and information sharing.
Appropriate systems would support the multipronged and cross institutional approach to
engagement with inactive or lapsed students that is taking place at the University. Enhancing
information flows between staff would have benefits for students. Staff would have a stronger
understanding of what was happening in other parts of the University and be able to advise or refer
students accordingly. This sentiment was expressed widely by staff, with comments such as “there
is no information flow. I need to go into [the student data base] or ask other lecturers” and “there is a
need for the systematic flow of information. The Uni should be more present”. Other comments
related to poor communication, leading staff to gather information by hearsay rather than through
formal channels: “We heard that if a student fails more than two times they won’t be accepted
again”.

Towards the point of return
77
Summary
The diverse student population at University A and the high proportion of students who belong to
one or more equity groups has a significant impact on student retention, deferral and leave of
absence. The University has a range of initiatives in place to support student retention, including
high quality academic and support services offered in online and face-to-face modalities. This case
study suggests that the visibility of these services needs to be enhanced for both students and staff,
with a focus on increasing use of these services by students at risk of leaving university prematurely
and supporting students back to study. Students who contributed to this study indicated that as they
became increasingly overwhelmed by their workload, they were less likely to seek out support
services. The challenge for the University is to ensure that students are accessing the available
services before they feel it is too late for them.
There is a high level of commitment to supporting students who have taken time off from study to re-
engage with the University. Within the recently restructured University, the portfolio responsible for
student success and engagement “has carriage of and responsibility for developing, articulating and
championing the operational drivers” of retention. However, initiatives for re-engaging students with
study are distributed, formally and informally, across a range of organisational units. Improved
communication and systems that support the sharing of data and initiatives between the success
and engagement portfolio and other organisational locations will be a key driver of improved student
retention and re-engagement going forward.

Towards the point of return
78
UNIVERSITY B CASE STUDY
Introduction
University B is in a metropolitan location and enrols a large number of students from a variety of
equity groups. Approximately 25 per cent of the domestic students are from low SES backgrounds
and almost two per cent identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. Analysis of HEIMS data
shows that the institution has a lower deferral rate, three per cent, than the national average of nine
per cent. The analysis of HEIMS data also shows that the proportion of non-returners (those who
deferred but did not return to higher education) was 40.7 per cent, slightly higher than the national
average of 35.7 per cent.
The University has policies and procedures in place to assist students from their first enrolment
through to completion of their degree. The approach is both pre-emptive and supportive. The pre-
emptive procedures are based on the principle of making personal contact with the students upon
enrolment, triaging their immediate needs so that their transition to university is best supported. The
supportive procedures take place at the point when students apply for deferment or leave of
absence and are aimed at facilitating a smooth transition back into study or by supporting an
extended period of deferment or leave of absence, if required.
Overall, the policies and procedures are designed to support students’ success in learning and their
enjoyment of the university experience across the breadth of their enrolment, minimising the need
for deferment and/or leave of absence for most students. Then, for the students who require a
period of deferment or leave of absence, the policies are designed to facilitate their continued
contact with the University and ultimately their successful return.
This case study includes information provided by student support staff at various levels within the
institution.
Responsibility for institutional oversight of deferring and leave of absence students
The University admissions unit has responsibility for oversight of deferring students. The unit
oversees processes to: invite eligible students to return from deferment earlier than planned or in
time for the start of the year; process the returns from deferment; consider and process requests for
extended deferment; and send email campaigns to students who have deferred including their
confirmation of deferment. The admissions unit also liaises with Schools if there is the likelihood of a
course being discontinued and where there are a significant number of deferred students, in order to
understand the potential impact on students and to plan for alternative options.
Admissions staff are authorised to approve deferments based on the following conditions without
seeking approval from the admissions team manager:
• Medical issues (accompanied by a treating practitioner’s certificate and support
documentation);
• Mental health issues (referred by a University counsellor or student’s practitioner);

Towards the point of return
79
• Pregnancy, where complications prevent the student from studying (accompanied by a
treating practitioner’s certificate and support documentation); or where the course being
studied could pose a health risk to the pregnant women or baby;
• Moving interstate (supported by appropriate documentation).
Any cases with circumstances beyond those listed above are referred to the admissions manager
for consideration.
With regard to leave of absence, students are entitled to apply for up to a year at any time and it is
generally approved. However, longer leave of absences require approval from either the Director of
Academic Programs or appropriate University welfare services. The maximum period for any leave
of absence is two years, however, in rare circumstances where, for example, the student only has
one unit left to finish a degree, the leave of absence period may be extended beyond two years. The
University does not have a systematic way of recording the reasons for leave of absence, as
explained by the leave of absence coordinator:
A lot of the time it’s for all different sorts of situations. Some students disclose the
reason; others don’t because it isn’t technically a requirement that they have to let
us know the reason. Often students are more likely to do so when the leave of
absence extends for more than one year, and in those cases it is often a medical
reason. For some it is work related, so they need to take time off for their jobs.
Others that I’ve seen it has been in regards to a particular subject not being offered
and that’s the only [unit] they have left, so they take a leave of absence for a
particular time [Interviewee A].
In some cases, particular courses of study have external structural barriers that lead to a
disproportionate number of applications for leave of absence, such as the need for all pre-service
teaching students to pass the Literacy and Numeracy Test for Initial Teacher Education (LANTITE).
With the Master of Teaching students, a common reason tends to be them needing
to do the LANTITE examination to become a teacher [Interviewee A].
The leave of absence process is quite automatic and usually no discussions are held with students
to counsel them with regard to their application. Discussions with the student are only initiated if the
leave of absence extends beyond the one-year period.
Oversight of preventative measures
While processes are in place to assist students who find themselves in a position where they need
to defer, a great deal of effort is also spent on programs designed to support students so that
deferral and leave of absence can be avoided. In addition to the admissions unit, the University also
runs other programs particularly focussed on support for students from low SES backgrounds. One
program (Transition Success Program) has been running for ten years and is a peer outreach
program. The program has three goals:
1. To contact all commencing students, with priority given to low SES students, to ensure that
they are transitioning well in their university study. These calls occur in the period leading up
to the census date and take on the form of a triage service, where students are referred on to

Towards the point of return
80
academics or others to assist with any issues, or to support student ambitions. It is important
that these calls are not viewed as always being remedial as often they act as a conduit for
students to sporting events, clubs and societies, which can improve their transition to
university.
…the welcome call is really about making sure that they are transitioning well into
their studies, into the social environments and getting over any institutional issues
that they might be having. So, it’s a phone call that we make after hours, after core
hours. So we are here until nine o’clock, and we will call up until the census date
[Transition Success Coordinator].
2. To contact students identified as at-risk by an academic, with priority given to low SES
students. These calls enable the University to make sure that students are aware of all of the
support services available, and to tailor their access to these services by helping the
students to identify the best course of action. These calls are very student-centred and have
a clear purpose of helping students to resume their studies in a manageable way.
So, it’s very student-centred and very tailored information that we give during those
sorts of interventions. It could even be a broader university intervention, so for
example, we will ring students who are at risk, as identified through the progression
policies. So, that could be at risk of exclusion, or at risk of conditional enrolment.
So, we’ll just have those conversations to see if we can actually get students back
on track early, before the teaching period starts [Interviewee B].
3. To contact students who have submitted an application to resign. The aim of these calls is to
identify what has led to this course of action and to discuss other options that the student
may have, for example, a reduced study load, or a change of enrolment into a different
course. Generally, only about half of these students are contactable, and of those, about 25-
30 per cent may change their decision to resign and will apply for a leave of absence
instead.
The aim here is not just to talk the student into staying, but to try and find out what’s
gone wrong. We’ll do an exit survey, but also offer alternatives [Interviewee B].
Practices related to extended leave
Deferment is able to be requested by students, prior to the semester census date, through
completion of an online form within student online records. This system removes the concern that
some students might experience during busy administrative periods. However, once students are
enrolled in their units in any particular semester, they are unable to defer through the online system
and must contact admissions staff. Where deferment is requested after the census date, students
are requested to apply for a ‘withdraw (W)’ grade, and if this grade is granted by the unit coordinator,
they can then apply for retrospective deferment. This decision is approved by the coordinator of the
admissions unit.
Extension of deferment is only considered if the deferred student has experienced extenuating
circumstances such as serious illness or misadventure or if they are the primary carer for a
dependent (spouse/de facto, child, parent) and where this responsibility is impacting on their

Towards the point of return
81
capacity to recommence study. Generally, the student needs to demonstrate that these extenuating
circumstances occurred during the period of deferment and not prior to the initial period of
deferment, however, there is flexibility surrounding this guideline. The extended period of deferment
is generally for a maximum of 12 months.
How are student views taken into account?
There are no specific processes in place to seek student feedback about the deferment and leave of
absence process. Students are able to access the University’s regular complaints mechanism if they
are dissatisfied with the decisions made by the University in relation to deferment or leave of
absence decisions.
When students choose to leave the university, they are given the opportunity on the application form
to indicate their reasons for doing so, however, this is an optional component of the online form. The
reasons are varied as one staff member commented:
…it could be that students are going to a different institution because they can’t get
to their campus….it could be about the teaching and learning, they’re not happy with
how it is delivered [Interviewee A].
Where relevant, this type of feedback is relayed to Schools within the University, at an aggregated
level to protect confidentiality. However, where ongoing issues can be identified with a particular
course or unit, the feedback is prioritised so that the issues can be addressed quickly.
Given the proportion of non-returners after deferment is higher than the national average, this
suggests the need for this university to improve data processes so that there is a better
understanding of the reasons behind deferment and leave of absence. This could be achieved
through the systematic collection of data from students as they access leave or deferment, and
could result in a higher return rate over time.

Towards the point of return
82
UNIVERSITY C CASE STUDY
Introduction
University C is a young and progressive university with a strong reputation for excellence in teaching
within a values-led leadership framework. The institution has a visible commitment to societal issues
that include reconciliation, gender equality and opportunities for people who have experienced
disadvantage and celebrates a diverse cohort of students. This university has received consistently
high endorsement for teaching quality from the Good Universities Guide and the Quality Indicators
for Learning and Teaching (QILT) and offers a range of on campus and online courses at enabling,
Vocational Education and Training (VET), undergraduate and postgraduate levels.
In 2019, 11 per cent of University C’s domestic undergraduates were from low SES backgrounds
and 17 per cent were from regional locations (based on residential postcodes). Of the total student
population, 16 per cent were international, 46 per cent were first in their family to attend a university,
17 per cent were studying part-time and 14 per cent were online.
Deferral practices
At University C, student advising, including leave-taking, is a shared responsibility and, since 2018,
following a project referred to as ‘service excellence’, activities are distributed across three key
directorates – Business Growth and Development (incorporating the Communication Centre),
Student Life (including Student Success advisors) and Student Administration. The coordination of
student advising across these directorates is the responsibility of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor,
Education.
Student Administration is responsible for the administrative processing of deferred offers, whereas
Business Growth and Development and Student Life are responsible for engaging with student
requests to take any leave of absence. The Communications Centre manages the process of email
communications to domestic students who are deferring or taking a leave of absence. These emails
inform students of the outcome of their applications and provide information to support their return to
study (e.g. enrolment, study support, personal support).
An online portal provides easily accessible information about commencing at University C, including
how to respond to an offer and options for deferring.
The Admission, Enrolment and Academic Progress Rules, which is accessible to students and staff,
provides definitions and processes related to:
• Intermit – ‘status applied to a Student who has applied for and received approval to defer
studying a Course for a specified period. ‘Intermitted’ will have a corresponding meaning.’ (p.
4)
• Student – ‘A person who meets one or more of the following criteria … [including] d) a
person admitted to a Course, whose studies have been deferred or Intermitted …’ (p. 5)
The Student Guide includes information and direct weblinks to the Legislation and Policy Directory
and the institution’s Statutes, Rules and By-Laws. While the Student Guide makes no explicit
mention of deferral or taking leave, the section titled ‘Course Advice, Changes or Withdrawal’

Towards the point of return
83
(Student Guide, p.10) mentions appropriate Service Centres to contact for more information about
these matters. The ‘Your Support’ section of the Guide provides detailed information about the
Student Hub and Student Success. In addition, the Student Hub webpage explicitly lists ‘assistance
with resuming your studies following deferral or discontinuation’ among the list of other enquiries
they handle and provides information on how to get in touch.
In recent times, a Discontinuation Working Group was formed comprising senior leaders and
representatives from Student Administration, Business Growth and Development, Student Life, and
Strategic and Governance Services. This group reviewed the discontinuation and leave-taking
processes with a focus on streamlining these and refining the reasons students can select for
withdrawing and taking leave. These changes have not yet been implemented.
Navigating current administrative practices
To defer or take leave, students would most often access the link to the ‘Defer your offer’ webpage,
which provides students with basic tailored information about deferral specific to their situation (e.g.
international, domestic, postgraduate research).
Domestic students are asked to complete the online form on the webpage and are informed that
‘When you submit the form, we'll record your offer deferral and mail you a confirmation letter with
instructions on how to take up your offer for a later period.’ A link to information and policy related to
privacy and security of student information is visible on the ‘Defer your offer’ webpage (relevant to
students completing the online form).
The online form includes a ‘reason for deferral’ field. Student Administration processes these forms
by placing applications on the outcome status of DEFOFFPEND. They also email students to inform
them that they will receive a new offer when the course intake opens that corresponds to their
intended enrolment. When the intake opens, Student Administration process a bulk update of all
DEFOFFPEND applications (to DEFOFFER), which triggers emails to students about their offer for
the new intake and what to do next. This is a practice that has been in place only for the most recent
intake.
Direct phone contact with students is currently not part of the deferral of offer process and, as such,
the emphasis of current practice is transactional rather than relational. Students receive an email
confirmation of deferral from Student Admissions, in effect processing the transaction. In relation to
returning to study, the Communication Centre has an automated campaign that promotes
acceptance of offer including bulk email, SMS and targeted outbound calls. As part of this case
study, discussions with staff indicated varying degrees of understanding of leave-taking processes
including slippage of different terms for deferral and leave-taking (e.g. Defer, Intermit, Intermission
or Leave). The terms were used interchangeably, and sometimes incorrectly, potentially causing
confusion for both staff and students.
The Student Life Directorate documents a process, relevant information and suggested scripts to
provide support to students on the phone, online and in person, including how to refer students to
Student Success and other relevant services if required. The Communications Centre has plans to
develop personalised scripts and customised strategies for discontinued students within specific
cohorts (e.g. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander).

Towards the point of return
84
Current practice of staff reveals that there is not a systematic process for supporting students taking
leave during their university study. In 2019, Business Growth and Development piloted a
communication and data capture process for students who had applied to withdraw from university.
Of the students contacted in 2019, 18 per cent changed to taking leave rather than withdrawing from
university study. Like the process of taking leave, students submit an online form to withdraw. Prior
to processing the request, the Communications Centre phones the student to ensure they are aware
of the options to reduce their study load, change study mode or take leave.
Whilst outside the scope of this project, Student Success meet with international students on a
Student Visa before an intermission request is processed and individually follow-up with students
prior to their return to study and, occasionally, whilst the student is on leave. On return to study, the
student and Student Success Advisors discuss the student’s current circumstances and relevant
support services for the semester. A similar process is followed for domestic students who are
supported by Student Success prior to intermission. However, it is not a requirement for domestic
students to discuss their study and enrolment as it is for Student Visa holders.
When a student submits the online form to take leave, the form recommends students discuss their
decision with someone within the University. This places the onus on the student, rather than
proactive outreach from the institution. There is no outreach from the University unless something
within the student’s comments necessitates a response. For example, review of some of the
intermission applications from 2018-2019 show where students request information on the process
to Withdraw Without Penalty and review of the student’s record indicate that this information was
provided to them. Similarly, the exception to this is where an international student applies without
first discussing this with Student Success Advisors. In these instances, Student Success Advisors
contact the student.
When a student’s leave period is concluding, there is no tailored communication. Students may be
included in the re-enrolment campaign that encourages continuing students to enrol in the upcoming
semester when enrolment opens. Given that students may be taking leave because of distressing
life events, the consideration of a separate re-enrolment campaign has been raised. However, the
data and communication systems currently require significant manual effort, so this response has
not yet been progressed.
Leave taker data – insights into low socio-economic status student practices
Data collected as part of this study indicates patterns of enrolment and re-enrolment and provides
insight into the experiences of low SES students.
Firstly, analysis was conducted on domestic undergraduate applicants who defer an offer, and
whether they either respond to their deferred offer or initiate another application to University C in
future years.
• The rate of deferral of an offer was 7 per cent for all domestic undergraduates, versus 6 per
cent amongst low SES applicants.
• Applicants who initially deferred were most likely to re-engage within the same year (i.e.
defer in first Semester to second Semester) or the following year.

Towards the point of return
85
• Across all domestic applicants, approximately 30 per cent of those who deferred in 2016-
2018
1
never resumed any future application for University C. This rate was similar amongst
low SES applicants.
Of those who did resume an application, 80 per cent ultimately accepted
2
. Again, this rate was
similar amongst low SES applicants. Those 20 per cent who did not accept were either not offered
due to the course being a quota course, or the student may have deferred their offer again.
Figure 13 shows the results of an analysis of the reasons for domestic undergraduate students
opting to take a leave of absence in 2018 and 2019.
Overwhelmingly, the need to seek employment is the most significant factor recorded. Data on low
SES students broadly reflected all student data. However, low SES students who cited family
reasons on departure from the University were slightly more likely to return (41 per cent returned)
than their peers (32 per cent).
Figure 13: Numbers of domestic Bachelors in each ‘reason’ category and whether they
returned
Open-ended responses were analysed to extract information about these students’ experiences,
providing the following issues:
• University study is often (increasingly) undertaken at a busy life stage;
• Undergraduate study, for most of these students, required significant commitment of time
(and, often, also expense, e.g. travel);
1
More recent data is available, however, by looking at 2016-2018, this allows several future periods for students to reapply
- to fully capture the return rate.
2
Until the Semester 1 2020 intake, Admissions would contact all students who had previously deferred an offer into the
coming period, and only issue offers for those who were still interested. This skews the base of those who resume,
resulting in a higher acceptance rate.

Towards the point of return
86
• Students frequently cited short-to-medium term disruptions, e.g. new job opportunities,
travel, children, health incidents, and reported that they expected to return to study once
these issues were resolved or diminished;
• Students also frequently cited pregnancy/childbirth and care of young children as the
disruptor: 22 per cent of all students who took leave in this dataset (and 24 per cent of those
who did return);
• Other common challenges included mental health concerns/mental illnesses (10 per cent),
moving or relocating away (11 per cent) and financial difficulty (9 per cent);
• A few students reported reasons that made it impossible to study at the University, for
example, moving interstate.
Student Voice
As part of this case study, four undergraduate university students were interviewed regarding their
decision to defer and/or take a leave of absence from their studies. While all these students had
taken leave, all are currently enrolled to return to study in 2020.
Taking leave/ deferral
All of the participants interviewed understood that they had the option of taking leave from their
studies: ‘I don't really know exactly how I knew that. I just always knew that was available. I just
knew that I could take a break when I needed to’ (Student 3). Student 4 stated, ‘I had heard about it
and I thought, well, it's easy enough to do.’ However, upon requesting and being granted leave,
Student 4 felt it would have been appropriate for the University to enquire further as to the reasons
they sought leave from their course of study: ‘like just a simple, why are you leaving and are you
sure […] someone picking up the phone to ask those questions would’ve made a world of
difference.’ Furthermore, students recognised information on deferring was available online,
however, felt it was not particularly accessible or clear via the University’s website search function.
Reasons for deferral/leave and key influencers in decision-making
In exploring the reasons as to why students opt to leave their studies, reasons provided by the
participants reflected the complexities captured in the institutional data described previously. Key
factors in making the decision to defer were varied depending on each student’s circumstance.
Student 1:
Student 1, a mature age student, struggled to maintain the balance between study obligation and
complex personal issues at home: ‘I took the leave because our marriage was struggling and my
wife was finding it very hard […] I took the leave to try and take the stress off her and help more
around the house as I was at home studying and had the kids while she was working.’ This decision
to leave study was supported by Student 1’s lecturer who encouraged them to ‘look out for family
first, sort that stuff out at home then come back and get stuck into it.’ In reflecting on this part of his
university journey, Student 1 felt well supported by the institution: ‘The University was awesome.
Couldn’t give a higher recommendation […] the University couldn't do much more. Just top line I
reckon.’ Despite leaving, Student 1 always felt supported to return: ‘I appreciate it a lot [the support].
The part where [University C] don’t just go, oh, you've taken off or you've taken leave or signed off,

Towards the point of return
87
you're gone. You know? The website's available, my emails are still available, the library's still
available, and the email that came through saying should you choose to resume your studies, feels
like, we're here for you. I’m very appreciative.’
Student 2:
Family reasons were also the key factor for Student 2 in choosing to leave study. Despite initially
thinking that she may have been able to persist, it was the ailing health of her mother that saw her
defer studies: ‘I was like, okay, do I push through and hope she doesn't have anything happen
again? Or do I take time off?’. Her decision was significantly influenced by the perspectives of her
peers: ‘I spoke to a couple of my friends and somebody else who was studying who had taken time
off at the time and I was like, do I push through and hope I just pass and not stress, or do I just say
nup and pull out…better to not fail?’. This decision was reinforced by the need to support their child
with dyslexia. Unlike Student 1, Student 2 did not seek advice or guidance from staff, either
academic or professional: ‘I didn't really talk to anybody at the uni, mostly just those around me and
heard their perspective.’
Student 3:
Student 3 deferred studies twice. The first time was for financial reasons: ‘I needed money. I needed
the work and the youth allowance wasn't an option […] I was still classed as legally dependent. Like
Student 2, friends were key influencers in the decision: ‘I had a bit of a chat with mates and stuff just
thinking like it is the right idea or whatever.’ The second deferral was for family health reasons: ‘my
dad was diagnosed with a glioblastoma so, like, terminal brain tumour. So, I was like well, I'm not
studying during this. I'm gonna spend time with him.’ Throughout this process the student felt well
supported by University C, particularly the health service. As with Student 1, Student 3 felt well
supported to re-engage in their studies: ‘I got some emails with links to just, from recollection, it was
probably about do you want to chat to anyone as you're coming back? As well as academic
workshop links and things like that, suggesting, do you need academic skills [support] or do you
need to bridge back in somehow or do you want to talk to any counsellors and stuff like that.’
Student 4:
At the end of first year, Student 4 felt like she was ‘floundering’ and ‘had no sense of direction’ so
took leave to pursue an overseas teaching opportunity. After requesting two semesters of leave, she
did not enjoy her experience overseas and sought to return after one semester off. Taking this break
interrupted her course plan significantly. Family were a key influencer in her decision to take leave,
opting not to discuss with academics or support staff: ‘I feel that, when you're in those situations, you
forget about all the help that is offered to you and that you've been exposed to throughout the years,
so you sort of just reflect back on what you know, which is just talking to family.’ While she felt well
supported, Student 4 felt proactive outreach would have been highly beneficial in informing her
decision and would have supported her at a difficult time in her student journey: ‘I would have liked
to have been asked why, you know, why are you doing this? Why are you leaving? And maybe it
would have [cries] sorry, I don't know, this experience, it's still quite fresh to me even though it's
been about six months or over.’
Recommendations from students for University C

Towards the point of return
88
Have proactive support conversations with those seeking deferral
All students found it easy to defer their studies at University C. As part of the deferral process, at the
point where students are asked to nominate their reason for deferral, the student participants
recommended that some form of support conversation would help ensure students requesting leave
had the relevant information to guide their decision. Often family and friends were key influencers in
students’ decision to defer; an additional perspective from University C would be useful in informing
students’ decision to defer or not.
Recognise reasons why students leave and ensure returning students feel welcome and supported
When the students were asked to consider what would support and enable re-engagement after
taking leave, all wanted proactive outreach that recognised their reasons for leaving and supported
their re-enrolment process. Student 2 captured this well: [something like] ‘Hey, you've had a break,
this is what you might want to do to get back into the routines and all. How to get back in the flow.’
This was also the case for Student 4: ‘Hey, you're returning! How are you feeling about this? Are you
confident? Are you sure this is still what you want?’. This kind of support was also deemed important
by Student 1 who felt that, in taking a leave of absence, they were somewhat a failure – welcoming
messages of support were viewed as being ideal. Academic skills workshops, one-to-one
conversations about returning to study and maintaining institutional communication and relationships
with deferred students was viewed as important to facilitating the return of students who have taken
leave/deferred. Clear course advice upon return was also viewed as critical.
Review inflexible course plans that make it difficult for returning students who don’t follow typical
study plans
The student experience at University C highlighted the inflexibility of course planning for students re-
enrolling after a leave of absence: ‘You can end up in difficult situations where […] you might be in
your final year, and you might be doing two units, and then you have to wait until the next year to do
your one last unit, which is only available in the first semester’ (Student 3). Students highlighted that
upfront information about this potential impact would have been useful upon seeking leave. This was
also the case for Student 4, ‘I could only do two units the second semester when coming back
because I screwed up first semester so much, like I'm still playing the catch-up game […] my units
were so jumbled from doing part-time, full-time, deferring and it never goes as you plan.’
Understand and communicate to students the financial implications of deferring study
For those on income support while studying, deferral meant that this source of income was ceased
suddenly. The need to then find work, as required by Centrelink, imposed a set of financial and time
burdens on students taking leave from their study – with potentially serious ramifications for students
going through significant hardship like family illness, death etc.: ‘If you're deferring for a semester,
what's going to happen to your youth allowance? You have to move over to ‘job seekers’ even if you
deferred for personal reasons, like in my circumstance, but then suddenly you have no income and
no employment. That's gotta be pretty planned out’ (Student 3). Closer liaison with Centrelink would
be critical for universities or, at least, knowledge of such implications needs to underpin the work of
student support staff at University C.

Towards the point of return
89
UNIVERSITY D CASE STUDY
Introduction
University D enrols a relatively large number of students from equity groups, particularly students
from low SES backgrounds and regional areas, and has a relatively small but growing number of
Indigenous students (Department of Education, 2019). The institution reports retention and success
rates that are slightly lower than the national average but has a strong track record of supporting
disadvantaged cohorts at university, reporting higher than average retention and success for
students from low SES and regional backgrounds (Department of Education, 2019). University D is
currently undertaking a renewal of its curricular and co-curricular offerings and has made significant
investments in academic interventions designed to improve student outcomes, which include
projects related to deferral and leave of absence.
This case study examines patterns of deferral and leave-taking at the institution using internal
enrolment data; reviews the policies and procedures regarding deferral and leave of absence;
analyses the interventions and support services that the University provides students who take a
break from study; and discusses the constraints for it to better encourage these students to return to
their study. We draw from three separate data sources, including: a desktop review of institutional
documents about deferral and leave of absence policies and procedures; analysis of internal
statistics; and a series of interviews conducted with staff at the University who had responsibilities
for deferrals or leave-taking. Staff were interviewed individually for between 30 and 45 minutes,
using a semi-structured protocol. The interviews covered perspectives on changes in the way
students progress through their degrees and the interventions offered by the institution to encourage
students to return, and interviews were studied using thematic analysis.
Analysis of institutional data
Deferral
Analysis of HEIMS data conducted as part of this project shows that the institution has a higher
deferral rate, 14 per cent, than the national average of 9 per cent. The analysis of HEIMS data also
shows that the proportion of non-returners (those who deferred but did not return to higher
education) was 38 per cent, slightly higher than the national average of 33 per cent.
The University has focussed resources on deferral and leave of absence students since initial
research in 2017 found that: the rates of withdrawal are very high both within the University and
across the sector; half of students on leave return to the sector within eight years, despite little active
re-recruitment; better understanding of leave and communications with students on leave would
boost enrolment numbers and institutional reputation.
A subsequent analysis of deferral trends using internal data (Cakitaki, 2019a) found that low SES
students were no more likely to defer than other students, and that those low SES students who did
defer were slightly more likely to return to the University than other students. By contrast, regional
students were almost 60 per cent more likely than metropolitan students to defer their offer at
university. Of the regional students who deferred, they were slightly more likely to return to the
University than metropolitan students, but overall the data show a large number of regional students
do not return to study. Indigenous students were slightly less likely to defer their place than non-

Towards the point of return
90
Indigenous students. Of those who did defer, they were almost 40 per cent more likely to return to
university than non-Indigenous deferrers.
The internal analysis also found that 72 per cent of students who return to university after deferring
returned to a different course. This striking finding suggests that, in many circumstances, deferral is
likely related to some uncertainty regarding course choice (Cakitaki, 2019a). It was not possible to
determine how many students who deferred subsequently transitioned to study at other institutions
from the internal data, but it is possible that many students who did not return to the University may
have changed institutions.
Leave of absence
The analysis of HEIMS data found that the institution’s leaving rate was 21.3 per cent, which was
slightly under the national average and the rate of return within two years of initially taking a break
was 32 per cent, slightly higher than the national rate of 28 per cent.
Analysis using internal enrolment data allowed us to examine the geo-demographics and
subsequent outcomes of students who took a formal leave of absence (Cakitaki, 2019b). Examining
the outcomes of students who were on a formal leave of absence was not possible from the analysis
of HEIMS data due to a lack of detail regarding leave of absence stored in HEIMS.
According to the internal analysis, a relatively large proportion of students undertake a formal leave
of absence each year. In 2018 for example, 2,369 students undertook an approved leave of
absence, which represents approximately 10 per cent of all onshore undergraduate students. The
most common period of leave is between 6 months and a year, with most students commencing
their leave in the first month of semester one or two.
When leave of absence patterns are examined by equity cohort, we found that students from low
SES and regional backgrounds were slightly less likely to go on approved leave from their course
than other students, but Indigenous students were overrepresented.
The University collects rudimentary data on the reason for students undertaking a leave of absence.
The most commonly cited reason is medical related, but ‘other’, employment and academic
difficulties are also commonly cited. Examined by equity cohort, we found that students from low
SES backgrounds were more likely to report academic difficulty. Regional students were more likely
to cite medical, academic difficulty and financial hardship. Indigenous students were much more
likely to report medical reasons and financial hardship as the reason for taking formal leave.
Tracking the short and medium-term academic outcomes of those on approved leave show that
students on an approved leave of absence are much more likely to be counted as attrition in the
Department of Education’s standard retention calculation. More than 50 per cent of students who
took an approved leave of absence in 2018 were counted as ‘attrited’ in the 2018-19 retention
period. The analysis also showed that nearly 30 per cent of student attrition at the University was
from students on a formal leave of absence.
Analysis of longer-term completion rates suggests that students who take a leave of absence are at
a significantly higher risk of non-completion. However, our internal data cannot track movement
between institutions and is therefore likely to exaggerate non-completion rates. For instance, the six-
year completion rate for students who took leave in 2013 was only 24.3 per cent, with a significant

Towards the point of return
91
proportion of students not returning to study after their formal leave period concluded. The risk of
non-completion was slightly higher for students from regional and low SES backgrounds, with
completion rates of 21.9 per cent and 19.3 per cent respectively. These completion rates would all
be somewhat higher if the analysis was able to track completions across the sector (accounting for
transfers), rather than just completions at the institution, given many leave of absence students
transition to other universities.
The reason for taking a leave of absence was found to be closely connected to the likelihood of
subsequent re-enrolment and completion. For students who indicated they intended to travel, 46 per
cent returned to complete their qualification. Students who cited financial hardship or medical
reasons for their leave of absence, which are more likely to be students from identified equity
cohorts, recorded completion rates of around 21 per cent.
While these data on the medium-term outcomes of formal leave of absence students are from a
single university, the relatively poor outcomes are likely to be replicated sector-wide. However,
without sector-wide data on the leave of absence status of students, the issue is hidden from view.
There is a need for better national level data on leave of absence to further examine the issue.
Institutional oversight of deferring and leave of absence students
Governance and leadership
The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (DVC), Students, oversees the operation of deferral and leave of
absence processes as well as the re-engagement of departed students. A dedicated institutional 5-
year Student Success and Retention Plan (Success Plan hereafter) was developed in 2018, which
serves as an overarching guideline for relevant practice. In the plan, the then Pro Vice-Chancellor
highlighted that,
(The University) continues to welcome students with a range of previous educational
experiences and at varying points in the degree lifecycle, to provide enriched and
supportive experiences that enable every student to achieve their unique version of
success.
Operationalising deferral and leave of absence policy and practice at the University requires
collaboration and coordination across different teams, including Student Services and
Administration, Marketing and Recruitment, and Student Success. The four professional staff
interviewed held senior responsibilities across these portfolios.
All the staff interviewed reported a structural change that had taken place at the University with
respect to the leadership for student success and retention. A more collaborative and matured
leadership and coordinating environment has emerged to bring different teams across the University
to work together on converting deferral or departed students. Structural change also drove a change
in perspective from one that viewed deferral and leave of absence practice as primarily an
administrative or bureaucratic task, to one that was driven by a desire to improve student outcomes.
These changes are illustrated by the following excerpts:
I think now, the organisation is at a level of maturity about how we focus on student
retention and conversion, and there's more attention being paid to how do we work
together to provide a good service to our students, and get them to come back, or

Towards the point of return
92
support them if they need help. What I see happening now, is that there's a
combined commitment to working together so we can manage this process. It's not
just an admin task anymore, it's more than that. From an admin perspective, we
couldn't do that on our own. That's how we were operating for a few years and no
one had any visibility on how many students deferred, how many actually returned,
whether our comms campaign made any difference whatsoever. I think working
together has been a really positive opportunity that we can start to manage this far
more effectively going forward (Interviewee 1a).
I think previously, recruitment was (focussed on) marketing to new students and
deferrals get lost, so deferrals, where do they sit? Who's responsible for them? What
we're saying is, we don't care who's responsible for them, the University's
responsible for them. Let's get all these entities together and map out what we're
going to do as a group. It takes a lot of work between areas to coordinate that and
to create that synergy to get things up and running (Interviewee 2a).
These observed adjustments could be partially attributable to the increasing priority of converting
deferral and leave-taking students at the University. Interviewee 1 suggested that the University now
has a real focus on conversion and retention and there is a combined commitment to managing the
process across the University. Given that the university attracts students from a lower SES
background, who often are first in family, there is an understanding of the higher likelihood for this
cohort to take leave of absence and a greater level of support is needed for them in comparison with
students at Group of Eight universities. Moreover, the reintroduction of capped funding and the
impending introduction of performance-based funding both focus universities on the financial and
reputational importance of retention.
Practices relating to extended leave
Policy and procedure regarding deferral and leave-taking
Students could typically defer their offer granted by the University before the census date in the
event that:
• They have not started their course;
• They have not completed a subject;
• They are not a recipient of a Postgraduate Commonwealth Supported Place (CSP).
Applicants who would like to defer their offer are required to complete an online form and the
outcome will be communicated with the applicant within 10 working days.
All undergraduate and postgraduate coursework students may apply for leave of absence for up to
twelve months from the course in which they are enrolled, in the case that they are experiencing
significant difficulties in personal or academic life – financial, emotional, medical, employment or
study related. Students may apply to extend the leave of absence if compassionate or compelling
circumstances continue to impede their ability to pursue their course. Requests for multiple leave of
absence over several Compulsory Teaching Periods or years will be considered on an individual
basis. An online system and forms are used for students to lodge their leave of absence application.

Towards the point of return
93
Particularly, the leave of absence policy requires students who believe they may need to apply for
leave of absence to first discuss their circumstances with the coordinator of their course or other
relevant academic staff before applying.
According to the interviewed staff, the University’s policies regarding deferral and leave of absence
are highly visible to both the operational team and students, which normally cause little confusion or
misunderstanding. One participant expressed her concern with extended leave of absence of over a
year in duration, which, in her view, should be only considered in extreme circumstances to make
sure the same admission principles are applied to a student cohort and that the competitiveness of a
student would not be reduced due to delayed enrolment (Interviewee 2). She also pointed out the
space for more reasonable deferral policies by streamlining and simplifying the process, improving
the consistency and transparency in the decision making, and ensuring clarity for students so that
they understand the rules.
Communications and engagement
Staff interviewees mentioned that students who defer or take a leave of absence are seen as
members of the University community, and the University makes every effort to make sure they do
not leave the community forever. Communications are central to keep engaging these students and
assist them with creating a sense of belonging. Students who defer or take a leave of absence will
be contacted at different key points via either email or outbound phone calls to discuss changes
about their life conditions as well as plans to return to study. A communication campaign was
developed mid-2017 to shape the communication with deferral and leave of absence students from
an administration activity to a real retention and conversion tool. In order to achieve this, several
changes have been highlighted by the interviewees and early evidence has shown how the
communication campaign helps with improving the conversion rate:
What we were trying to do was really promote the University’s services and facilities,
and really encourage people to feel excited about returning or choosing to come
and study, because at this point, they hadn't accepted and enrolled, they're just
deferred. We started using… what's it called, MailChimp, so we could include
images and stuff like that, instead of just a text-heavy message. And we could track
who was opening their messages and that sort of thing (Interviewee 1a).
Last year [2018], I started reaching out to see, what is their experience, who touches
base with them, what actually happened? With the student services and
administration team, we devised a bit of an email campaign about students at the
end of the year, who that would then come back in Semester One, 2020. I talked to
them about how could we then work in, with these emails, what is the content? We'll
follow-up after a first email, we could ring them and then a second email, so we
could work together to build a more comprehensive support for these students
(Interviewee 3a).
We piloted calling at the end of last year [2018] all students due to return Semester
One, 2020. And the plan went exceptionally well and the data to date showing a 10
per cent increase in those returning for those who we were able to successfully
reach by phone (Interviewee 3a).

Towards the point of return
94
There is indeed evidence from an internal evaluation of an intervention designed to improve the rate
of return for leave of absence that it was effective at improving rates of return. The evaluation of
welcome back calls during the final month of a student’s leave of absence found that the intervention
improved the proportion of students either returning or extending their leave by around 9 per cent,
once demographic, equity, prior academic achievement and course factors were controlled for
(Cakitaki; 2019c). While the intervention was found to improve outcomes, the relatively small effect
size is consistent with other research (Bird et al., 2019; Dawson, Jovanovic, Gašević, & Pardo, 2017;
Ortagus, Tanner & McFarlin, 2020).
Support services
The University runs a number of support programs. Some flagship programs were noted by the
interviewees as examples that are particularly helpful for smoothing the transition of students who
return to study after a leave of absence:
We referred most of them into our learning support program, which is called One
Step Ahead. It is targeted towards new students, but also very good for students
who are returning to study.
There was quite a significant number of referrals to careers advice as well. People
who had been on a bit of a leave, they're coming back and they're thinking what's
the right course for me? Is this the right career path? They left because they're not
feeling that sense of purpose. Am I going to be these, is it really a good fit? So
obviously careers advice is important.
We're really pleased that they were thought of and we came up with a strategy
around how they might get integrated back into study. And also, where they had
obviously cited things like financial reasons or things like that, we could also talk to
them about what scholarships were available, book them in with a financial
counsellor if they still needed assistance (Interviewee 3a).
One interviewee further argued that because students do not necessarily know the available
services even if they attended orientation and may not realise how a certain service could actually
help them, warm referral is useful to help with identifying the right service students need, particularly
for students who are disengaged or struggling as they are the least likely to access those support
services. Other interviewees stressed the importance of having face-to-face interventions to make
sure support services could achieve the best result:
I think a phone call is fine, but nothing beats that face-to-face human intervention.
A few years back it seems that universities moved to the self-help component.
There's online help, you can help yourself here, let us know if you need help, we
don't want to bother you. But sometimes you’ve got to go old school and face-to-
face and sit down and walk people through it and we are doing that with our
enrolment sessions. I think to better support them for leave of absence, it's that
process before they go on leave of absence and a step in that being that they're
actually talking to someone (Interviewee 2a).

Towards the point of return
95
We should provide some in-person support, where they can chat with an academic
or whatever. I know they've set up the student advising pilot where they're actively
contacting students (Interviewee 1a).
In addition to the existing services, participants also suggested a few other possible programs to
remove any barriers, such as extra financial support or improvements to the availability of relevant
data, to help students to re-engage with their study:
I have a feeling there probably would need some more financial support. If there is
a way of targeting students perhaps who are on leave of absence and in an equity
category to help them financially return. I guess we'd like to bring it off for them even
more than we do (Interviewee 3a).
For deferrers, the biggest thing is knowing the reason for the deferral. I think we're
in the time now that we could do that, we've got the right leadership, the right people.
There's a lot of momentum to get this system right. It's just getting that data
(Interviewee 2a).
Constraints for better engagement
The major constraint reported by interviewed staff for better engaging deferrers and students who
take a leave of absence was the paucity of data. The following comments illustrate how data could
help operational staff to deliver more effective communications and targeted interventions:
If you had a set of reasons for why you were deferring, that would then generate the
intervention. Why are you deferring and then how do we map the intervention to
make sure that the re-engagement is successful and that we're not maybe
intervening at the right time. If it is because of an illness or a family situation, I don't
want you to call me so frequently. If it's a travel situation, it's a completely different
situation. Can you imagine how powerful it would be if we had that? (Interviewee
2a).
The leave of absence, I was talking to someone about this yesterday. Would be
handy if we had specific course data especially about, we don't know which courses
are changing and which ones, and more priorities for students to get certain types
of advice. Probably the more we can get data on the individuals, for the individual
student and tailor it even more, the better (Interviewee 3a).
In addition, a better data collection mechanism will help with monitoring and evaluating the effect of
the communication campaign, as one participant put it:
We were lacking data collection. We had a communication campaign, because we
thought it would be good to keep students on, but we didn't know were there any
targets that we were aiming for? We didn't really understand whether the
communication had any impact on addressing that. What has been missing, and I
think this is the next stage that the organisation is looking at, is understanding what
the success of that communication campaign was. Because we didn't really have
any data, it is difficult to review our level of success really. (Interviewee 1a).

Towards the point of return
96
In acknowledgement of the data constraints within leave of absence and deferral processes, among
other constraints, a data analytics team was established. The team conducted the aforementioned
analysis of leave of absence call campaigns and is conducting a range of analysis on non-
participating enrolments (ghost students), as well as redrafting the University’s withdrawal form to
enable better data capture about the reasons that students leave. This work will enable future
interventions to be more targeted and, hopefully, effective.

Towards the point of return
97
UNIVERSITY E CASE STUDY
Introduction and overview
This case study explores low SES leave-taking within the context of the student cohort at University
E in Melbourne, Australia. The research conducted within the University and its diverse student
voices had four primary objectives:
• Understand deferral and leave of absence amongst low SES students;
• Understand the institutional oversight and management of deferral and leave of absence;
• Identify strategies by which University E can promote the return to study and their successful
transition back of these students;
• Understand the perspectives of low SES students who have taken leave.
The findings provide future directions for improvement to institutional strategy, practices and policies
as they relate to leave takers and in particular the low SES cohort, as well as directions for future
research.
Institutional context
As a university of Opportunity and Success, University E is committed to being inclusive rather than
exclusive, with a vision that incorporates our aspiration to uplift communities. University E has eight
campuses across Melbourne, with an additional campus in Sydney catering for international
students from over 45 countries as well as an online course offering. As a dual-sector institution,
University E enrols more than 40,000 students in higher education and vocational education and
training, with a long tradition of increasing participation and enabling success for low SES students.
Definitions of deferral and extended leave
Deferment is an agreement to allow an applicant to defer taking up the place they have been offered
until a later time. Deferment may be granted for all commencing local students in higher education
(and TAFE) courses up to a maximum of 12 months.
Leave of absence is an approved break in study after study has commenced. Students approved for
leave of absence have all relevant units in the study period(s) withdrawn but remain enrolled at the
University at the course level.
The Block Model
In 2018, University E introduced a Block Model which encompasses both a First Year Model for
commencing higher education students, together with a block mode approach to the delivery of
learning and teaching. The First Year Model is focussed on maximising student engagement for all
first year undergraduate students with a highly interactive and personal small group experience,
pedagogy proven by research to ease transition and promote learning gain and personalised and
co-curricular academic and other support to enhance knowledge and skills. University E’s Block
Model focusses student learning on one unit (subject) at a time over four weeks in small groups
rather than four subjects at a time over a 12 week period using large lecture delivery.
With the introduction of the First Year Model and the new learning and teaching mode in 2018 for
commencing undergraduate students, the student outcome trends from previous years started to

Towards the point of return
98
change across the academic year, particularly in the areas of academic achievement and retention.
This case study considers the impact of the Block Mode in the context of student deferral and leave
of absence over 2018 and 2019.
Methodology
A mixed-methods approach was used to undertake this case study, integrating quantitative and
qualitative ‘approaches to theory, data collection, data analysis and interpretation’ (Bamberger,
2012, p. 1). This provided the best approach from which to evaluate and deepen the understanding
of impacts and how they may be influenced within a particular context (Bamberger, 2012). This is an
approach that enables a richer ‘understanding of the social phenomena being studied’ (Greene,
2001, p. 30), informed by student and staff voices on their perspectives through interviews, with an
analysis of institutional data and a desktop review also employed for the case study.
Institutional data analysis
Student enrolment data from the 2014-2019 calendar year period was examined. The dataset
included students in domestic onshore undergraduate (Bachelor) studies. The data collected student
enrolments with an instance of a deferral, leave of absence, or both leave types. The analysis
focussed only on course attempts associated with any deferral or leave of absence in that period
and considered the demographic or characteristics of low SES students who had deferred and taken
leave, compared with other equity groups and students overall.
Institutional Desktop review
A desktop review was conducted with a focus on institutional policy, procedure, processes,
organisational accountability and responsibility associated with leave-taking, relevant website
information and other publicly available documentation. The review was undertaken prior to students
and staff being interviewed and was vital to understanding and interpreting the insights offered by
interview participants.
Student interviews
The perspectives of six low SES students who took leave during this period were captured by semi-
structured interviews that asked open-ended questions about their study experience, perspective
and experiences, and ideas for future interventions and strategies. The interview questions followed
the Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) approved schedule.
Staff interviews
The perspectives of five staff (professional and academic) were captured by semi-structured
interviews, using the HREC approved interview schedule. The interviews provided insights that
complemented the desktop review, providing staff perspectives on institutional approaches and the
efficacy of those, as well as future directions.
The interviews of both staff and students were transcribed. The analysis and development of key
research themes and findings was undertaken separately by two independent researchers to ensure
there was no bias in the analysis.
Key Findings
Low SES students at University E

Towards the point of return
99
In 2018, the most recently reported period, 24.82 per cent of undergraduate students were from low
SES backgrounds, above the sector average of 16.97 per cent.
Profile of low SES students taking leave at University E
Low SES leave takers represent a relatively small cohort of students. There were 2,152 unique low
SES students, of a total population of 42,981 students, who took leave (deferral or leave of
absence). Within this dataset of unique students, multiple occurrences of deferral and leave of
absence were found due to multiple course attempts by some students. It was found that there were
451 occurrences of low SES students deferring and returning to study and a further 1,723
occurrences of low SES students taking a leave of absence during a course attempt.
Data on the students who did not enrol to study after a period of deferral was not able to be
collected.
Low SES students and leave of absence
The analysis indicated that low SES students had taken an average of 190 days of leave during the
six-year period.
The trends from year to year were difficult to accurately examine due to leave of absence not being
available as time slice data, the need to collect data from multiple systems in a short project
timeframe and the analysis of unique students and/or enrolled courses being complex. Through
requesting the data, one outcome relevant to the case study is that whilst the data can be made
available with some internal effort, it is not possible for key staff involved in planning, decision
making and managing students with leave of absence to easily access the data and use it to
proactively support improved student outcomes. The research also showed that, with the
introduction of the Block Model since 2018, leave of absence records are now more complex. For
example, students may have multiple leave of absence periods during a traditional semester period
sometimes in multiple modes of study
3
.
The analysis of low SES students with leave of absence showed that there is an emerging trend for
students who have taken leave of absence to either become ‘lapsed’ or ‘inactive’ in their enrolment
status, or to discontinue (see Figure 14). This requires further investigation.
3
In 2018 and 2019, some students studied in both block (one subject over 4 weeks) and traditional mode (multiple concurrent subjects
over 12 weeks) at the same time.

Towards the point of return
100
Figure 14: Current enrolment status of students who took a leave of absence between 2014-
2019
Key demographic characteristics of low SES leave takers
Low SES students were compared to the total student population (number of distinct persons
enrolled in Bachelor courses) – that is, 42,891 students during the period. It was found that:
• Low SES students who took leave of absence were predominantly from the West of
Melbourne region (1,116 students).
• The majority of low SES students who deferred and commenced study or had a leave of
absence were undertaking a Bachelor course in Arts, Education or Health and Biomedicine.
• Of the low SES students who deferred, 285 were female and 166 were male.
• Of the low SES students who took a leave of absence, 1,013 were female, 708 were male
and one student identified as gender x.
• Of the low SES students taking leave of absence, 889 ‘only speak English’ and 802 were
from non-English speaking backgrounds.
• Of the low SES students who deferred and enrolled to study, 307 were from backgrounds
where only English is spoken and 116 were from non-English speaking backgrounds.
• 615 low SES students (28 per cent) with either leave category had no ATAR, which is
reflective of the institution’s admission policy. 392 (18 per cent) of these students were in the
41-50 ATAR range followed by 349 (16 per cent) in the 51-60 ATAR range.
• Of the cohort of low SES students that took leave, 155 (7 per cent) identified as having a
disability.
• A very small number of low SES students who took leave identified as Aboriginal or Torres
Strait Islander. It was found that three students deferred prior to commencing study and 12
had a leave of absence associated with their course attempt.
Student voice – perspectives on deferral and leave of absence
The interviews with students provided a deeper understanding of their experiences of having
deferred or taken leave of absence and provided important insights to improve their transition to
study. The interviewed low SES students had all returned to study from a period of either deferral or
leave of absence.

Towards the point of return
101
Students reported that they found the experience of applying and being approved for deferral or
leave of absence straightforward and that University E made it ‘easy’ for them. Through the
interviews, students shared their personal perspectives of the experience, indicating that it was
mostly online, took minimal time, was a straightforward process and there were advisors on call if
students required them.
It was found that students who defer appear to experience no difference in their return to study when
compared to any other newly commencing students. They enjoy the same welcoming and on-
boarding support that any new student does. Low SES students taking a leave of absence reported
that they require support in their transition to study and made recommendations for support
programs to be introduced.
Reasons for deferring study were varied across students and included travelling, work opportunities,
financial pressure leading to work commitments, needing a break after Year 12 studies and
pregnancy. Some students wanted to explore other opportunities such as volunteering and others
felt they needed to get in the right mindset for study. Through the interviews it was established that
students actively made their decision to defer:
I knew from Year 10 that I was going to travel … I’ll make sure I’ll get my spot straight
after school and then I will defer it.
Students reported that deferring to take a gap year seemed to improve their focus, motivation and
often made them feel more positive about returning to study. Upon their return to study, deferring
students found the gap year had had a significant impact on them, better preparing them for study,
impacting their views on the importance of study and their participation levels. One student
commented that:
I think it made me better prepared because Year 12 was pretty stressful and I don’t
think I would have been ready to study straight after high school.
The interviews highlighted that students on leave of absence experienced difficulties in resuming
their place at university after leave. They indicated a range of challenges for resuming their study
and place at university which included getting back into the routine of studying, not having a group of
friends, changes at university upon returning and changes due to the implementation of Block
Mode/units whilst on leave.
Students who were interviewed for this study have taken leave of absence during the Block Model
project implementation. It is probable that those students had challenges returning at least partly
because the design of learning and teaching changed significantly in their absence. Some
commenced study in traditional mode and returned to study in block mode (or a mix of both modes),
which meant they had to learn an entirely new way to study, organise themselves and learn to
navigate a new university system. It was found that this also had an impact on their existing
friendship and study groups. Changes also included things moving to an online format, the
structuring of courses/units, and how to enrol in classes. Students often felt alone in having to ‘figure
out what needed to be done’.
Some students who took a leave of absence found it challenging to get back into the ‘routine’ of
study, struggling with motivation, having to learn to incorporate study back into their already

Towards the point of return
102
competing priorities of family life and work. Students reported difficulties associated with not having
a cohort or group of friends to return to as one of the more difficult aspects of returning from leave.
Some students indicated that flexibility and choice was limited and that they struggled to develop
relationships with teaching staff.
Students who took a leave of absence identified strategies that may support their transition to study
more effectively. These included a buddy system, reaching out to students who had returned from
leave of absence more proactively and tailored support services for their transition back to study.
Institutional oversight of deferral and leave of absence
Policy and procedure
A desktop review of institutional policy and procedure was conducted as part of this study and staff
interviewed were asked about policy and procedure as part of their interviews.
Both policy and procedure related to admissions and enrolment underwent an extensive review and
refresh in 2019, including extensive consultation with both staff and students. University E’s
continued implementation of the Block Model over multiple years has led to more frequent changes
to processes, procedures and policies and there is an increased need for senior leaders to ensure
that staff knowledge is current. The review found that policy and procedure is embedded in staff
practice and students indicated that the process around leave-taking and deferral was
straightforward and made ‘easy’ for them, as reported above. Staff reported that they find the policy
and procedural documentation quite visible and easy to access in order to administer and service
students.
With relevance to deferrals, the Admissions Policy and Procedure is comprehensive and current, as
well as written in relatively plain English, providing clarity for students and a set of principles to guide
staff in the admission of students. With relevance to leave of absence, the Enrolment Policy
ensures that University E’s enrolment practices are fair and consistent, are compliant and support
the delivery of an excellent student experience. It was found that some terminology improvement
could be made to documentation where the terms leave of absence and intermission are still used
interchangeably and may cause some confusion.
The desktop review showed that University E prioritises deferrals and leave-taking through policy
and procedure, and through the choice and option given to all students. In interviews, staff reported
that students were supported in their decision to take a leave of absence with a level of due care, as
one senior leader reported:
… if they showed reasonable circumstances for wishing to vary their enrolment, and
they do so within the timely application and they can demonstrate that they’ve had
advice or they are taking a sensible decision that’s good for them, we would almost
in all circumstances try to advise the student as best we can and then grant the
deferral or leave of absence.
University E prioritises all students who take deferral and leave of absence with an embedded
approach to support and transition services. Those approaches and the level of support differ
between each leave type. Staff members described the engagement strategies for each and spoke

Towards the point of return
103
of the fact that these strategies were built into institutional procedures with a focus at present on
process improvement to ensure the strategies are fit-for-purpose due to the introduction of the Block
Model:
…at a policy level, there was a lot of work being done to try and keep in touch with
those students so that we didn’t lose them and that they did return at the end of the
deferral date.
Monitoring, reporting and evaluation
At the operational level, student deferrals and leave of absence are routinely reported via University
systems between Student Administration and Student Services for intervention, follow up and
support with the aim of assisting all students to commence or return to study. It was found that these
systems do not segment enrolment records by low SES identifiers to assist Student Advisors who
are usually the first point of contact for students. It was clear from the review that improvements can
be made in the exchange of information and reports beyond these groups so that Student
Administration can better inform Colleges on their low SES cohort’s leave-taking to enable better
transition and support.
It was found that the overall process to ‘convert’ leave takers is well structured with cross-functional
operating groups meeting regularly to plan conversion activities and campaigns. It also appears from
the review that the information reported at the institutional level on leave of absence generally
remains in traditional reporting cycles and is not yet adjusted to suit the changing rhythm of the
Block Model.
The review of processes to monitor and evaluate leave takers across operational divisions
highlighted that there is an exit point for outcomes data that could be improved. Whilst the campaign
activity that seeks to convert students (deferral to enrolment, leave of absence to re-enrolment) are
continuous and well automated, the information gathered from students during contact campaigns
throughout each year could be improved. This process sends rich and insightful information back to
the Student Administration team, without a follow on process to analyse and set in motion a new set
of actions should low SES leave takers not return to study in a subsequent period. This process also
resides within administrative systems and some College staff do not have full access to the
information. Staff reported at interview that richer data would enable them to tailor follow up
conversations with low SES students:
…We can basically then really tailor our conversations to those students and make
them much more personable and assist with them returning to study… some better
insights into reasons for deferment and leave of absence would assist those
conversations and staff training.
It was evident from the review that some enhanced, low effort, automation of processes between
systems and people could deliver these needed improvements to better support low SES students’
return to study.
Engagement with leave takers and support services

Towards the point of return
104
Staff interviewed were insistent on the need to provide additional support for students from low SES
backgrounds, as this was seen as a key factor in facilitating success for deferred students and for
those returning from leave of absence.
Generally, staff viewed the services that leave takers might utilise as quite accessible and believed
students on leave of absence have an advantage of already being a ‘current student’ with access to
university systems and updates whilst on leave to stay informed and connected. Staff commented
that some students are often reluctant to access support services as it requires them to self-report
and risk ‘stigmatisation’. The low SES students interviewed described the support services as visible
and accessible.
University E is currently considering ways in which to better engage students during their deferral
and leave of absence period, with ‘authentic and genuine’ communications. Staff commented that a
project group is already established to automate more of the resource intensive ‘duck paddling’
required to manage students on leave. Staff commented that continued investment in technologies
such as the enterprise-CRM is a key dependency to enable this work to be developed and for the
engagement of students to be enhanced. In the case of deferred students, a trial has been
completed to engage and support them better.
Deferment
Due the Block Model’s opportunity to enrol at additional times in the academic year and undertake
one unit / block of study at a time over four weeks, the nature of student deferrals and the frequency
is changing the way in which the University needs to engage with students. Without traditional bi-
annual semester start dates as the only entry point for students to enrol and commence study,
deferral periods are likely to shorten as students have more flexibility and choice as explained by an
academic staff member:
...So, I think it’s more likely, in the block environment, the students won’t be looking
at the deferring for six months to 12 months, they’ll simply be stepping back.
Returning from deferment is managed carefully for students, particularly those who may experience
campus changes for their intended course. Returning from deferment is celebrated, similar to a
commencing new student, and student welcome information is provided (e.g. orientation programs).
A range of key staff interviewed explained the significant aspect of the conversion and on-boarding
activities for deferral students, with some personalisation within the cohort itself.
As deferred students are considered new commencing students, they complete a personalised
Success Plan on enrolment and are individually matched with a Student Advisor to support them.
From the student interviews conducted, there was no feedback to suggest any issues with starting
university following a deferment.
Leave of Absence
All students have the choice to apply for a leave of absence, however, the application undergoes a
careful approval process as there may be implications for taking the leave related to future study
patterns. As with deferral, leave of absence is changing due to the Block Model. Where a leave of
absence may previously have been for a semester, it is now possible to have a leave of absence for

Towards the point of return
105
one four week block (i.e. unit of study). Students remarked at interview that they found it challenging
to get back into the ‘routine’ of study, struggling with motivation, and having to learn to incorporate
study back into their already competing priorities of family life and work.
The review discovered that an expired leave of absence, without intervention, is not entirely
understood in terms of how it may relate to students eventually being made ‘inactive’ and ‘lapsed’ by
university processes at particular time intervals throughout the year. This pattern potentially sees
students disengaging with their studies; without actively discontinuing and without nuanced
interventions and support to retain them. However, more work is required to fully understand the
connection.
Discussion and conclusion
Due to the Block Model, the options for both leave types of deferral and leave of absence has
changed significantly, with more choices for students and flexibility to decide when they study at
more frequent intervals. Careful modelling and monitoring needs to be undertaken to fully
understand the impacts of this change on student retention and success, as well as the benefits and
challenges of that change on both the institution and its students due to greater flexibility. This
change requires University E to undertake a unique and deeper piece of work in relation to low SES
students taking leave of absence and students more broadly, to analyse and understand new
patterns of leave of absence that may result in the further revision of policy and improved student
engagement processes and support services. This includes the further investigation of students who
disengage with their study following one or more leave of absence and are considered as absent
without leave (Harvey et al., 2017).
It is evident from this research study that some students with leave of absence had a more
challenging return to study and this was in part due to the rollout of the Block Model during their
course which changed every aspect of their study and learning experience whilst they were on
leave. It was also evident that low SES students taking a leave of absence could benefit from a
more proactive support service from the University whilst on leave, although this applies to all
students on a leave of absence. Staff themselves acknowledged that this is a key student retention
strategy they intend to develop and it was identified during the study that University E’s Success
Planning program would be an ideal way in which to engage low SES students who take leave of
absence. Particularly if their circumstances continue to change over time, a case management
approach for low SES students using the established Success Planning program may better
engage, support and retain low SES leave takers.
Now in 2020, with the implementation of the Block Mode nearly complete for undergraduates, it was
clear from the staff interviewed that students returning to study from leave of absence in the future
will experience a more flexible and engaged learning model together with more enhanced, proactive
and nuanced support services already under development. Similarly, programs need to be slightly
nuanced for deferred low SES students as they return to study.
It was clear from the research that the available data for key staff successfully managing low SES
students in these two leave categories could be improved and would lead to a more responsive and
strategic service design that improves student retention and success. Major recommendations
include the design of automated reporting at new time intervals due to Block Mode; timely and
simplified reporting for key staff focussed on retention activities; time slice data on leave of absence;

Towards the point of return
106
and reports on deferred students who never commence study which may increase with the
frequency and flexibility of new admission and enrolment periods throughout each year afforded by
the design of the Block Model. There were also data limitations discovered that may need
addressing including the need to source data from multiple systems and personnel to make sense of
a student’s study journey, and the need for reportable information on leave of absence reasons to
understand the trends and complex challenges in grappling course/unit data down to a student-level.
Finally, a further review needs to be directed at understanding deferral and leave of absence with a
more robust analysis of leave rates, reasons, and return rates using a more sophisticated approach
than was taken within the time constraints of this case study and the limitations of available data.
This is already being considered at University E, in the context of the current and future states of the
Block Model, so we may plan for future leave takers and support a diverse range of students.

Towards the point of return
107
References
Anderson, D. S., & Vervoorn, A. E. (1983). Access to privilege: Patterns of participation in Australian
post-secondary education. Canberra: ANU Press.
Archer, L. (2007). Diversity, equality and higher education: a critical reflection on the ab/uses of
equity discourse within widening participation. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(5-6), 635-
653.
Australian Government. (2020). Job-ready Graduates – Higher Education Reform Package.
Canberra: Department of Education, Skills and Employment. Retrieved from
https://www.dese.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/job_ready_graduates_discussion_paper.pdf
Department of Education and Training. (2018). Completion Rates of Higher Education Students -
Cohort Analysis, 2005-2017. Retrieved from https://docs.education.gov.au/node/51501
Bagnoli, A. (2009). On 'an introspective journey': Identities and travel in young people's lives.
European Societies, 11(3), 325-345.
Ball, S. J., Vincent, C., Kemp, S., & Pietikainen, S. (2004). Middle Class Fractions, Childcare and
the 'Relational' and 'Normative' Aspects of Class Practices. The Sociological Review, 52(4),
478-502.
Bamberger, M. (2012). Introduction to mixed methods in impact evaluation. Impact Evaluation
Notes, 3(3), 1-38.
Barney, K. (2016) Listening to and learning from the experiences of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander students to facilitate success. Student Success, 7(1).
Barney, K. (2018). Community gets you through: Success factors contributing to the retention of
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Higher Degree by Research (HDR) students. Student
Success. 9(4).
Barrett, E., & Powell, J. (1977). Deferring Students Who Did Not Re-enrol at the University of New
South Wales in 1976. Kensington, NSW: Tertiary Education Research Centre, University of
New South Wales,.
Baum, S., & Ma, J. (2012). Trends in college pricing 2011. New York, NY: College Board Advocacy
and Policy Center.
Beames, S. (2004). Overseas youth expeditions with Raleigh International: A rite of passage?
Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education, 8(1), 29-36.
Behrendt, L., Larkin, S., Griew, R., & Kelly, P. (2012). Review of Higher Education Access and
Outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People Final Report. Retrieved from
https://www.education.gov.au/review-higher-education-access-and-outcomes-aboriginal-and-
torres-strait-islander-people
Benson, G., Ploeg, J., & Brown, B. (2010). A cross-sectional study of emotional intelligence in
baccalaureate nursing students. Nurse Education Today, 30(1), 49-53.

Towards the point of return
108
Bettinger, E. P., Long, B. T., Oreopoulos, P., & Sanbonmatsu, L. (2012). The Role of Application
Assistance and Information in College Decisions: Results from the H&R Block FAFSA
experiment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127(3), 1205-1242
Birch, E., & Miller, P. (2007). A National Study of Studens' Performance at University. Australasian
Journal of Economics Education, 4(2).
Birch, E., & Miller, P. W. (2007). The Characteristics of 'Gap-Year' Students and Their Tertiary
Academic Outcomes. Economic Record, 83(262), 329-344.
Bird, K. A., Castleman, B. L., Denning, J. T., Goodman, J., Lamberton, C., & Rosinger, K. O. (2019).
Nudging at scale: Experimental evidence from FAFSA completion campaigns (0898-2937).
Birrell, B., Calderon, A., Dobson, I. R., & Smith, T. F. (2000). Equity in access to higher education
revisited. People and Place, 8(1), 50-61.
Bonham, L. A., & Luckie, J. A. I. (1993). Taking a break in schooling: why community college
students stop out. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 17(3), 257-270.
Borden, L. M., Lee, S.-A., Serido, J., & Collins, D. (2008). Changing College Students' Financial
Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behavior through Seminar Participation. Journal of Family and
Economic Issues, 29(1), 23-40.
Bornholt, L., Gientzotis, J., & Cooney, G. (2004). Understanding Choice Behaviours: Pathways from
School to University with Changing Aspirations and Opportunities. Social Psychology of
Education: An International Journal, 7(2), 211-228.
Bradley, D., Noonan, P., Nugent, H., & Scales, B. (2008). Review of Australian Higher Education:
Final Report. Retrieved from
https://www.mq.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/135310/bradley_review_of_australian_hi
gher_education.pdf
Breneman, D. W., & Merisotis, J. (2002). Beyond money: Support strategies for disadvantaged
students. In D. E. Heller (Ed.), Conditions of access: Higher education for lower income
students (pp. 113-133). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Brown, J., Rothman, S., & Underwood, C. (2012). The On Track Survey 2011 Longitudinal Report
The 2007 Cohort 4 Years On. Australian Council of Educational Research. Retrieved from
https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&amp;context=transitions_misc
Brown, P., Hesketh, A., & Williams, S. (2004). The Mismanagement of Talent: Employability and
Jobs in the Knowledge Economy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Cakitaki, B. (2019a). Deferral at La Trobe University: An analysis. Unpublished manuscript, Centre
for Higher Education Equity and Diversity Research, La Trobe University.
Cakitaki, B. (2019b). What happens to students who take a leave of absence at La Trobe
University? Unpublished manuscript, Centre for Higher Education Equity and Diversity
Research, La Trobe University.
Cakitaki, B. (2019c). Evaluation of a leave of absence intervention. Unpublished manuscript, Centre
for Higher Education Equity and Diversity Research, La Trobe University.

Towards the point of return
109
Cardak, B. A., & Vecci, J. (2016). Graduates, Dropouts and Slow Finishers: The Effects of Credit
Constraints on University Outcomes. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 78(3), 323-
346.
Checchi, D. (2006). The economics of education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Clancy, P., & Goastellec, G. (2007). Exploring Access and Equity in Higher Education: Policy and
Performance in a Comparative Perspective. Higher Education Quarterly, 61(2), 136-154.
Cosser, M. (2009). The skills cline: higher education and the supply-demand complex in South
Africa. Higher Education, 59(1), 43-53.
Côté, J. E. (2006). Emerging Adulthood as an Institutionalized Moratorium: Risks and Benefits to
Identity Formation. In J. L. Arnett & J. J. Tanner (Eds.), Emerging adults in America coming
of age in the 21st century (pp. 85-116). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Crawford, C., & Cribb, J. (2012). Gap-year takers: Uptake, trends, and long term outcomes.
Retrieved from
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_dat
a/file/219637/DFE-RR252.pdf
Creswell, J., & Poth, Cheryl N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five
approaches (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Curtis, D. D. (2014). The 'Gap Year' in Australia: Incidence, Participant Characteristics and
Outcomes. Australian Economic Review, 47(1), 107-114.
Daniels, D. (2017). Student income support: a chronology. Canberra: Parliament of Australia.
Retrieved from
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Librar
y/pubs/rp/rp1718/Chronology/StudentIncomeSupport
Daubman, K. A., Williams, V. G., Johnson, D. H., & Crump, D. (1985). Time of withdrawal and
academic performance: Implications for withdrawal policies. Journal of College Student
Personnel, 26(6), 518-524.
Davis, T. M., & Murrell, P. H. (1993). A structural model of perceived academic, personal, and
vocational gains related to college student responsibility. Research in Higher Education,
34(3), 267-289.
Dawkins, J. S. (1988). Higher education: A policy statement. Canberra: AGPS.
Dawson, S., Jovanovic, J., Gaševi, D., & Pardo, A. (2017). From prediction to impact: evaluation of a
learning analytics retention program. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Seventh
International Learning Analytics & Knowledge Conference, Vancouver, British Columbia,
Canada. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1145/3027385.3027405
Day, A. Nakata, V. Nakata, M., & Gregory M. (2015) Indigenous students' persistence in higher
education in Australia: contextualising models of change from psychology to understand and
aid students' practices at a cultural interface, Higher Education Research &
Development, 34:3,501-512, DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2014.973379
Department of Education and Training. (2015). Higher Education in Australia: a review of reviews
from Dawkins to today. Canberra. Retrieved from

Towards the point of return
110
https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/higher_education_in_australia_-
_a_review_of_reviews.pdf
Department of Education and Training. (2016). 2015 Appendix 5- Equity performance data.
Retrieved from https://docs.education.gov.au/node/41766
Department of Education and Training. (2017). Completion Rates of Higher Education Students-
Cohort Analysis, 2005-2014. Canberra: Department of Education and Training. Retrieved
from https://docs.education.gov.au/node/41841
Department of Education and Training. (2018). Undergraduate Applications, Offers and
Acceptances 2018. Canberra. Retrieved from https://docs.education.gov.au/node/51541
Department of Education Training and the Arts. (2007). The next step report on the destinations of
Year 12 completers in Queensland. Brisbane: Queensland Department of Education and the
Arts.
Department of Education, Skills and Employment. (2019). Selected Higher Education Statistics -
2018: Section 16 - Equity performance data. Retrieved from
https://docs.education.gov.au/node/53030
Department of Social Services. (2018). DSS Payment Trends and Profile Reports. Retrieved from
https://researchdata.ands.org.au/dss-payment-trends-profile-reports
Devlin, M. (2013). Bridging socio-cultural incongruity: conceptualising the success of students from
low socio-economic status backgrounds in Australian higher education. Studies in Higher
Education, 38(6), 939-949.
Devlin, M., & McKay, J. (2014). Reframing 'the problem': Students from low socio-economic status
backgrounds transitioning to university. In H. Brook, D. Fergie, M. Maeorg, & D. Michell
(Eds.), Universities in Transition (pp. 97-125). South Australia: South Australia: University of
Adelaide Press.
Dietrich, J., Parker, P., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2012). Phase-Adequate Engagement at the Post-School
Transition. Developmental Psychology, 48(6), 1575-1593.
Dobson, H., & Smith, R. F. (2000). What is stress, and how does it affect reproduction? Animal
Reproduction Science, 60-61, 743-752.
Dobson, I. R., & Skuja, E. (2005). Secondary Schooling, Tertiary Entry Ranks and University
Performance. People and Place, 13(1), 53-62.
Dow, K. L., & Dow, K. L. (2011). Review of student income support reforms. Canberra: Department
of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. Edwards, D., & McMillan, J. (2015).
Completing university in a growing sector: Is equity an issue? Retrieved from
https://research.acer.edu.au/higher_education/43
Edwards, R. (1993). Mature Women Students. London: Falmer.
Elsworth, G., Day, N., Hurworth, R., & Andrews, J. (1982). From school to tertiary study: Transition
to college and university in Victoria (Monograph No. 14). Melbourne, Australia: Australian
Council for Educational Research.

Towards the point of return
111
Epstein, D. (1995). In our (New) Right minds: the hidden curriculum and the academy. In L. Morley
& V. Waksh (Eds.), Feminist Academics: Creative Agents for Changes (pp. 56-72). London:
Taylor and Francis.
Evans, M. (1995). Ivory towers: life in the mind. In L. Morley & V. Walsh (Eds.), Feminist Academics:
creative agents for change. pp. 73-85. London: Taylor and Fran.
Freeman, B., Klatt, M., & Polesel, J. (2014). Deferring a university offer in regional Victoria - final
report. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264384165_Deferring_a_university_offer_in_region
al_Victoria_-_final_report
Gaële, G. (2006). Accès et admission à l'enseignement supérieur : contraintes globales, réponses
locales ? Cahiers de la Recherche sur l'Education et les Savoirs, 5, 15-35.
Gale, T., & Tranter, D. (2011). Social justice in Australian higher education policy: an historical and
conceptual account of student participation. Critical Studies in Education, 52(1), 29-46.
Gore et al. (2017). The participation of Australian Indigenous students in higher education: a scoping
review of empirical research, 2000-2016. Australian Education Research. 44(1).
Greene, J. C., Benjamin, L., & Goodyear, L. (2001). The merits of mixing methods in evaluation.
Evaluation, 7(1), 25-44.
Haase, C. M., Heckhausen, J., & Köller, O. (2008). Goal Engagement During the School-Work
Transition: Beneficial for All, Particularly for Girls. Journal of Research on Adolescence,
18(4), 671-698.
Halsey, A. H. (1993). Trends in Access and Equity in Higher Education: Britain in international
perspective. Oxford Review of Education, 19(2), 129-140.
Halsey, J. (2018). Independent review into regional, rural and remote education: final report,
National Regional, Rural and Remote Education Strategy. Canberra: Department of
Education and Training. Retrieved from https://docs.education.gov.au/node/50281
Harding, S. (1990). Feminism, Science, and the Anti-Enlightenment Critiques. In L. J. Nicholson
(Ed.), Feminism/Postmodernism (pp. 83-106). New York, NY: Routledge.
Harvey, A., & Burnheim, C. (2013). Loosening old school ties: Understanding university
achievement and attrition. Professional Voice, 9(2), 29.
Harvey, A., & Luckman, M. (2020). Towards Inclusive Excellence: a survey of diversity on campus,
Unpublished manuscript. Centre for Higher Education Equity and Diversity Research.
Harvey, A., & Szalkowicz, G. (2016). Developing multiple exit pathways within undergraduate
courses. International Studies in Widening Participation, 3(1), 52-67.
Harvey, A., Burnheim, C., & Brett, M. (2016). Towards a Fairer Chance for All: Revising the
Australian Student Equity Framework. In A. Harvey, C. Burnheim, & M. Brett (Eds.), Student
Equity in Australian Higher Education: Twenty-five years of A Fair Chance for All (pp. 3-20).
Singapore: Springer.
Harvey, A., Szalkowicz, G. & Luckman, M. (2017). The re-recruitment of students who have
withdrawn from Australian higher education. Report for the Australian Government
Department of Education and Training. Melbourne: Centre for Higher Education Equity and

Towards the point of return
112
Diversity Research, La Trobe University. Retrieved from
https://www.latrobe.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/784028/La-Trobe-NPP-Re-
recruitment-Research-Report-24-February-2017.pdf
Harvey, A., Szalkowicz, G., & Luckman, M. (2020). Improving employment and education outcomes
for Somali Australians. Melbourne. Retrieved from
https://www.latrobe.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/1095510/Final-Report-La-Trobe-
Somali-Australians-25-Feb-2020.pdf
Heath, S. (2007). Widening the Gap: Pre-University Gap Years and the 'Economy of Experience'.
British Journal of Sociology of Education, 28(1), 89-103.
Heckhausen, J., & Schulz, R. (1995). A Life-Span Theory of Control. Psychological Review, 102(2),
284-304.
Heckhausen, J., & Tomasik, M. J. (2002). Get an Apprenticeship before School Is Out: How German
Adolescents Adjust Vocational Aspirations When Getting Close to a Developmental
Deadline. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60(2), 199-219.
Higher Education Statistics Agency. (2020). Non-continuation: UK Performance Indicators 2018/19.
Retrieved from https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/performance-indicators/non-
continuation-1819
Hillman, K. (2005). The first year experience: The transition from secondary school to university and
TAFE in Australia. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Holmlund, B., Liu, Q., & Nordström Skans, O. (2008). Mind the gap? Estimating the effects of
postponing higher education. Oxford Economic Papers, 60(4), 683-710.
Hoyt, J. E., & Winn, B. A. (2004). Understanding Retention and College Student Bodies: Differences
Between Drop-Outs, Stop-Outs, Opt-Outs, and Transfer-Outs. NASPA Journal, 41(3), 395-
417.
Hunter, M. S. (2006). Fostering student learning and success through first-year programs. Peer
Review, 8(3), 4-7.
Hurtado, S., & Carter, D. F. (1997). Effects of College Transition and Perceptions of the Campus
Racial Climate on Latino College Students' Sense of Belonging. Sociology of Education,
70(4), 324-345.
Jackson, C. (2016). The Other Side of Attrition. The Australian, 13 September.
Jewson, N., Mason, D., Bowen, R., Mulvaney, K., & Parmar, S. (1991). Universities and ethnic
minorities: The public face. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 17(2), 183-199.
Jones, A. (2004). Review of Gap Year Provision. London: Department for Education and Skills.
Retrieved from http://www.tussenjaartwijfels.info/wp-
content/uploads/2015/07/AndrewJonesforDfES2003.pdf
Jorgensen, B. L., & Savla, J. (2010). Financial Literacy of Young Adults: The Importance of Parental
Socialization. Family Relations, 59(4), 465-478.
King, A. (2011). Minding the gap? Young people's accounts of taking a Gap Year as a form of
identity work in higher education. Journal of Youth Studies, 14(3), 341-357.

Towards the point of return
113
Klatt, M., & Polesel, J. (2013). Deferring a University Offer in Victoria: 2009 Year 12 Graduates -
Three Years Out. Melbourne, Victoria: Youth Affairs Commission of Victoria.
Krause, K., Hartley, R., James, R., & McInnis, C. (2005). The First Year Experience in Australian
Universities: Findings From a Decade of National Studies. Canberra, ACT: Department of
Education, Science and Training. Retrieved from https://melbourne-
cshe.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/1670228/FYEReport05KLK.pdf
Kroll, C. (2013). The great recession and housing affordability. Berkeley, CA: UC Berkeley Fisher
Center for Real Estate and Urban Economics.
Lamb, S. (2001). The Pathways from School to Further Study and Work for Australian Graduates.
Melbourne, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research, Melbourne.
Leathwood, C. (2006). Gender, equity and the discourse of the independent learner in higher
education. Higher Education, 52(4), 611-633.
Letseka, M., Cosser, M., Breier, M., & Visser, M. (2010). Student Retention and Graduate
Destination: Higher Education and Labour Market Access and Success. Cape Town, South
Africa: HSRC Press.
Li, I., & Carroll, D. (2017). Factors influencing university student satisfaction, dropout and academic
performance: an Australian higher education equity perspective. Perth: National Centre for
Student Equity in Higher Education. Retrieved from
https://www.ncsehe.edu.au/publications/factors-influencing-university-student-satisfaction-
dropout-and-academic-performance-an-australian-higher-education-equity-perspective/
Liddle, C. (2015). First Peoples: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participation in higher
education. In A. Harvey, C. Burnheim & M. Brett (Eds.), Student equity in Australian higher
education: Twenty-five years of A Fair Chance for All. Singapore: Springer Publishing.
Linke, R., Barton, A., & Cannon, R. (1985). Deferment of Entry Into Higher Education. Adelaide, SA:
Tertiary Education Authority.
Lomax-Smith, J., Watson, L., & Webster, B. (2011). Higher education base funding review: final
report. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved from
https://www.canberra.edu.au/research/faculty-research-
centres/edinstitute/documents/HigherEd_FundingReviewReport1.pdf
Lumsden, M., & Stanwick, J. (2012). Who takes a gap year and why? Adelaide, SA: National Centre
for Vocational Education Research. Retrieved from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED533076.pdf
Marginson, S. (1993). Education and public policy in Australia. Melbourne: Cambridge University
Press.
Martin, A. J. (2010). Should Students Have a Gap Year? Motivation and Performance Factors
Relevant to Time Out After Completing School. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3),
561-576.
McInnis, C., Hartley, R., Polesel, J., & Teese, R. (2000). Non-completion in vocational education and
training and higher education. Melbourne: Centre for the Study of Higher Education The
University of Melbourne & The Department of Education Training and Youth Affairs.
Retrieved from

Towards the point of return
114
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John_Polesel/publication/237438336_Non-
Completion_in_Vocational_Education_and_Training_and_Higher_Education/links/0f317530d
480d479ca000000/Non-Completion-in-Vocational-Education-and-Training-and-Higher-
Education.pdf
Messinis, G., & Sheehan, P. (2015). The academic performance of first year students at Victoria
University by entry score and SES, 2009-2013: Victoria Institute of Strategic Economic
Studies Melbourne. Retrieved from https://www.vu.edu.au/sites/default/files/cses/pdfs/the-
academic-performance-of-first-year-students-at-VU-by-entry-score-and-SES-2009-2013.pdf
Miller, M. T., & Pope, M. L. (2003). Integrating technology into new student orientation programs at
community colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 27(1), 15-23.
Morley, L. (1997). Change and Equity in Higher Education. British Journal of Sociology of Education,
18(2), 231-242. doi:10.1080/0142569970180206
Napthine, D., Graham, C., Lee, P., & Wills, M. (2019). National Regional, Rural and Remote Tertiary
Education Strategy. Canberra: Department of Education. Retrieved from
https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/national_regional_rural_and_remote_ter
tiary_education_strategy.pdf
Naylor, R., Baik, C., & James, R. (2013). A Critical Interventions Framework for advancing equity in
Australian higher education. Melbourne: Centre for Higher Education Study. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266798034_Developing_a_Critical_Interventions_F
ramework_for_advancing_equity_in_Australian_higher_education
Norton, A. (2012). Graduate Winners: Assessing the public and private benefits of higher education.
Melbourne: Grattan Institute. Retrieved from https://grattan.edu.au/wp-
content/uploads/2014/04/162_graduate_winners_report.pdf
Norton, A., & Cherastidtham, I. (2018). Mapping Australian higher education 2018. Melbourne:
Grattan Institute. Retrieved from https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/907-
Mapping-Australian-higher-education-2018.pdf
Norton, A., Cherastidtham, I., & Mackey, W. (2018). Dropping out: the benefits and costs of trying
university. Melbourne: Grattan Institute Retrieved from https://grattan.edu.au/wp-
content/uploads/2018/04/904-dropping-out-the-benefits-and-costs-of-trying-university.pdf
Nurmi, J. (2001). Adolescents' self-direction and self-definition in age-graded sociocultural and
interpersonal contexts. In J. Nurmi (Ed.), Navigating through adolescence. European
perspectives (pp. 229-249). New York, NY: Routledge.
OECD. (2010). Education at a glance: OECD Indicators. Pairs, France: OECD.
Oreopoulos, P., & Petronijevic, U. (2019). The remarkable unresponsiveness of college students to
nudging and what we can learn from it. National Bureau of Economic Research. Ortagus, J.
C., Tanner, M. J., & McFarlin, I., Jr. (2020). Can Re-Enrollment Campaigns Help Dropouts
Return to College? Evidence from Florida Community Colleges. National Bureau of
Economic Research.
Oseguera, L., & Rhee, B. S. (2009). The Influence of Institutional Retention Climates on Student
Persistence to Degree Completion: A Multilevel Approach. Research in Higher Education,
50(6), 546-569.

Towards the point of return
115
Oswald, D. L., & Clark, E. M. (2003). Best friends forever? High school best friendships and the
transition to college. Personal Relationships, 10(2), 187-196.
Parker, P. D., Lüdtke, O., Trautwein, U., & Roberts, B. W. (2012). Personality and Relationship
Quality During the Transition From High School to Early Adulthood. Journal of Personality,
80(4), 1061-1089.
Parker, P. D., Schoon, I., Tsai, Y., Nagy, G., Trautwein, U., & Eccles, J. (2012). Achievement,
Agency, Gender, and Socioeconomic Background as Predictors of Postschool Choices: A
Multicontext Study. Developmental Psychology, 48(6), 1629-1642.
Perna, L. W. (2006). Understanding the Relationship Between Information About College Prices and
Financial Aid and Students' College-Related Behaviors. American Behavioral Scientist,
49(12), 1620-1635.
Perna, L. W., & Steele, P. E. (2011). The Role of Context in Understanding the Contributions of
Financial Aid to College Opportunity. Teachers College Record, 113(5), 895-933.
Perna, L. W., & Swail, W. S. (2002). Pre-college outreach and early intervention programs. In D. E.
Heller (Ed.), Condition of access: Higher education for lower income students (pp. 97-112).
Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Pike, E. C. J., & Beames, S. K. (2007). A Critical Interactionist Analysis of 'Youth Development'
Expeditions. Leisure Studies, 26(2), 147-159.
Pitkethly, A., & Prosser, M. (2001). The First Year Experience Project: A model for university-wide
change. Higher Education Research & Development, 20(2), 185-198.
Polesel, J. (2009). Deferring a University Offer in Rural Australia. Australian Journal of Education,
53(1), 87-103.
Polesel, J., & Klatt, M. (2014). University deferrers in metropolitan and non-metropolitan Victoria: A
longitudinal study. Australian Journal of Education, 58(2), 182-194.
Polesel, J., Klatt, M., & O'Hanlon, C. (2012). Deferring a university offer in regional Victoria.
Melbourne. Melbourne: Youth Affairs Council of Victoria.
Power, S., Edwards, T., Whitty, G., & Wigfall, V. (2003). Education and the middle classes.
Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
Productivity Commission. (2019). The Demand Driven University System: A Mixed Report Card.
Retrieved from: https://www.pc.gov.au/research/completed/university-report-card/university-
report-card.pdf
Raciti, M., Carter, J., Gilbey, K., & Hollinsworth, D. (2018). The ‘university place’: how and why place
influences the engagement and retention of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander university
students. Retrieved from:
http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:22266 Reay, D., David, M.,
& Ball, S. (2005). Degrees of choice: Social class, race and gender in higher education.
Stoke-on-Trent, England: Trentham Books.
Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2011). Social equity and the assemblage of values in Australian higher
education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 41(1), 5-22.

Towards the point of return
116
Rose-Adams, J. (2013). Leaving university early: Exploring relationships between institution type
and student withdrawal and implications for social mobility. Widening Participation and
Lifelong Learning, 15(2), 96-112
Rosenbaum, J., Deil-Amen, R., & Person, A. (2006). After admission: From college access to
college success. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Ryan, C. (2013). Student income support and education and training participation in Australia.
Adelaide: National Centre for Vocational Education Research. Retrieved from
https://www.ncver.edu.au/research-and-statistics/publications/all-publications/student-
income-support-and-education-and-training-participation-in-australia
Ryan, C. (2014). Impact of the Australian Higher Education Funding Reforms. University of
Melbourne. Retrieved from
https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/2168191/pb2014n02.p
df
Savickas, M. L. (2005). The theory and practice of career construction. In S. D. Brown, R. W. Lent, &
R. W. Lent (Eds.), Career Development and Counseling: Putting Theory and Research to
Work (pp. 42-47). New York: Wiley.
Services Australia. (2020). Dependent or independent for Youth Allowance. Retrieved from
https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/individuals/topics/dependent-or-independent-youth-
allowance/29921
Sharrock, G. (2014). How much student debt will you be facing post-budget? The Conversation.
Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/how-much-student-debt-will-you-be-facing-post-
budget-26712
Shim, S., Barber, B., Card, N., Xiao, J., & Serido, J. (2010). Financial Socialization of First-year
College Students: The Roles of Parents, Work, and Education. A Multidisciplinary Research
Publication, 39(12), 1457-1470.
Slonimsky, L., & Shalem, Y. (2006). Pedagogic responsiveness for academic depth. Journal of
Education, 40(1), 37-58.
Spradley, J. P. (1979). The Ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston
Stehlik, T. (2010). Mind the gap: school leaver aspirations and delayed pathways to further and
higher education. Journal of Education and Work, 23(4), 363-376.
Taylor, J. (2013). The potential value of a reverse transfer associate degree: Diverse values and
perspectives. Retrieved from http://occrl.illinois.edu/articles/the-potential-value-of-areverse-
transfer-associate-degree-diverse-values-and-perspectives/
Taylor, J. L., & Bragg, D. D. (2015). CWID Data Note: Increasing state associate's degree
attainment: The potential of reverse transfer. Retrieved from
http://occrl.illinois.edu/docs/librariesprovider4/cwid/cwid-data-note-4.pdf?sfvrsn=5
Teese, R., Robinson, L., Lamb, S., & Mason, K. (2006). The 2005 on track longitudinal survey: the
destinations of 2003 school leavers two years on. Melbourne: Victorian Department of
Education and Training.

Towards the point of return
117
Tehan, D. (2019). National Regional, Rural and Remote Tertiary Education Strategy [Media
release], retrieved from https://ministers.dese.gov.au/tehan/national-regional-rural-and-
remote-tertiary-education-strategy
Terriquez, V., & Gurantz, O. (2015). Financial Challenges in Emerging Adulthood and Students'
Decisions to Stop Out of College. Emerging Adulthood, 3(3), 204-214.
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition (2nd ed.).
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.).
Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Tones, M., Fraser, J., Elder, R., & White, K. M. (2009). Supporting mature-aged students from a low
socioeconomic background. Higher Education, 58(4), 505-529.
Trow, M. (2007). Reflections on the Transition from Elite to Mass to Universal Access: Forms and
Phases of Higher Education in Modern Societies since WWII. In F. J.J.F. & A. P.G. (Eds.),
International Handbook of Higher Education (Vol. Springer International Handbooks of
Education, pp. 243-280). Dordrecht: Springer.
Walker, L., Matthew, B. O. B., & Black, F. (2004). Widening access and student non-completion: an
inevitable link? Evaluating the effects of the Top-up Programme on student completion.
International Journal of Lifelong Education, 23(1), 43-59.
Weaving, A. (1978). What Happens to Deferring Students at the University of New South Wales.
Vestes, 21, 31-33.
Wolffensperger, J. (1993). 'Science Is Truly a Male World.' The Interconnectedness of Knowledge,
Gender and Power within University Education. Gender and Education, 5(1), 37-54.
Woosley, S. (2003). Stop-Out or Drop-Out? An Examination of College Withdrawals and Re-
Enrollments. Journal of College Student Retention, 5(3), 293-303.
Woosley, S., Slabaugh, K., Sadler, A. E., & Mason, G. W. (2005). The Mystery of Stop-Outs: Do
Commitment and Intentions Predict Reenrollment? NASPA Journal, 42(2), 188-201.
Wright, C. M., Frew, T. J., Hatcher, D., & Mok, M. (1996). The Social and Demographic
Characteristics of Direct and Delay Entry Nursing Students in Australian Universities. Higher
Education Research & Development, 15(2), 239-248.
Yardley, L. (2009). Demonstrating validity in qualitative psychology. In A. Smith (Ed.), Qualitative
psychology: A practical guide to research methods (pp. 235–251). Los Angeles: Sage.
Yin, R.K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE.
Zarrett, N., & Eccles, J. (2006). The passage to adulthood: Challenges of late adolescence. In S.
Piha & G. Hall (Eds.), New directions for youth development (pp. 13-28). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley
Online Library.
Zepke, N., & Leach, L. (2010). Improving student engagement: Ten proposals for action. Active
Learning in Higher Education, 11(3), 167-177.
Zurita, M. (2004). Stopping Out and Persisting: Experiences of Latino Undergraduates. Journal of
College Student Retention, 6(3), 301-324.

Towards the point of return
118
Appendix 1: Technical Appendix to the
“Towards the point of return” report.

Towards the point of return
119
Appendix 2: deferral project staff survey
Start of Block: Survey consent question
Q1.1 We are currently conducting a research project examining students’ uptake of university study following a deferral or
a leave of absence. The aim of the study is to explore ways institutions can encourage and support disadvantaged
students who defer or take a leave of absence to return to higher education. The research is being conducted by a
consortium of institutions including La Trobe University, The University of Queensland, Charles Darwin University, Edith
Cowan University, Victoria University and Western Sydney University. The survey will take less than 10 minutes to
complete. More detail regarding the project is available in the Participation Information Statement for institutional
surveys.docx.
You are encouraged to discuss the survey questions with relevant staff who have responsibilities in the deferral and leave-
taking space at your institution. Before continuing to complete the survey, please indicate your agreement or
disagreement with the following statement: 'I have read and understood the Participant Information Statement and consent
to participate in this research project.'
Please note: You will be screened out of the survey if you select "disagree".
o Agree (1)
o Disagree (2)
End of Block: Survey consent question
Start of Block: Definitions of key terms
Q2.1 Definition of key terms
Low SES students: In Australia, the socio-economic status (SES) of students is determined by matching Index of
Education and Occupation (IEO) data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ 2011 Socio-economic Indexes for Areas
(SEIFA) to the postcode of the student’s home residence. Postcodes classified as being in the lowest 25th percentile of the
population according to the IEO were classified as low SES.
Deferrers: Students who have received an offer to study at a university but choose to defer their studies before the
census date and begin their course at a later date.
Leave takers & leave-taking: Students who apply for Leave of Absence (LoA), and would like to complete their course
after they have returned from leave.
Return to study: Students who either deferred or had taken a leave of absence and re-enroll at a later date.
Conversion & conversion rate: The proportion of students who had either deferred or had taken a leave of absence that
return to study.
End of Block: Definitions of key terms

Towards the point of return
120
Start of Block: Institutional deferral and intermission of study strategies
Q4.1 To what extent is the conversion of deferrers or leave-takers a priority for your institution?
Not a priority (1)
Somewhat of a
priority (2)
Moderate priority (3)
High priority (4)
Conversion of
deferrers (1)
o
o
o
o
Conversion of leave-
takers (2)
o
o
o
o
Q4.2 Is there a member of the senior executive at your university who has specific responsibility for deferral and leave of
absence?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Unsure (3)
Deferral (1)
o
o
o
Leave taking (2)
o
o
o
Q4.3 Are you broadly aware of the number of students who defer or take leave at your institution?
o Yes (1)
o No (2)

Towards the point of return
121
Q4.4 Which student groups do you think might be more likely than their peers to defer or take a leave of absence? (Select
as many as apply)
Deferral (25)
Leave taking (26)
Students from low socio-economic
status background (41)
▢
▢
Regional and remote students (42)
▢
▢
Students from a non-English
speaking background (43)
▢
▢
Indigenous students (44)
▢
▢
Students with a disability (45)
▢
▢
Women in non-traditional areas (46)
▢
▢
Other (47)
▢
▢
None of above (48)
▢
▢
Q4.5 Do any of your institutional strategies refer to encouraging deferrers or leave-takers to return to study?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Unsure (3)
Deferral (1)
o
o
o
Leave taking (2)
o
o
o

Towards the point of return
122
Q4.6 Is there a committee which has responsibility for issues surrounding student deferral and leave of absence?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Unsure (3)
Deferral (1)
o
o
o
Leave taking (2)
o
o
o
Q4.7 Does your institution have any specific mechanisms in place to monitor and track the conversion rate of deferrers or
leave-takers?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Unsure (3)
Deferral (1)
o
o
o
Leave taking (2)
o
o
o
Display This Question:
If Does your institution have any specific mechanisms in place to monitor and track the conversion r... =
Deferral [ Yes ]
Or Does your institution have any specific mechanisms in place to monitor and track the conversion r... =
Leave taking [ Yes ]

Towards the point of return
123
Q4.8 Does your institution have any specific mechanisms in place to monitor and track the conversion rate of deferrers
and/or leave takers by equity group?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Unsure (3)
Deferral (1)
o
o
o
Leave taking (2)
o
o
o
Q4.9 Does your institution monitor the number of deferrers and/or leave takers who use support services?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Unsure (3)
Deferral (1)
o
o
o
Leave taking (2)
o
o
o
End of Block: Institutional deferral and intermission of study strategies
Start of Block: Section 3: General engagement strategy for deferrers and leave takers
Q5.1 To what extent do you feel policies and procedures regarding deferral and leave of absence are visible at your
institution?
Highly visible
(1)
Moderately visible
(2)
Not visible (3)
Deferral
(1)
o
o
o
Leave-taking (2)
o
o
o

Towards the point of return
124
Q5.2 Does your institution have any interventions in place to encourage deferrers and/or leave-takers to return to study?
(Select one)
Yes (1)
No (2)
Unsure (3)
Deferral
(1)
o
o
o
Leave-taking (2)
o
o
o
Display This Question:
If Does your institution have any interventions in place to encourage deferrers and/or leave-takers... =
Deferral [ Yes ]
Q5.3 Could you please provide a description of the initiatives designed to encourage the return of deferrers? For
example, details of communication plans, support services etc... (free text)
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Display This Question:
If Does your institution have any interventions in place to encourage deferrers and/or leave-takers... =
Leave-taking [ Yes ]
Q5.4 Could you please provide a description of the initiatives designed to encourage the return of leave-takers? For
example, details of communication plans, support services etc... (free text)
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Towards the point of return
125
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Display This Question:
If Does your institution have any interventions in place to encourage deferrers and/or leave-takers... =
Deferral [ Yes ]
Or Does your institution have any interventions in place to encourage deferrers and/or leave-takers... =
Leave-taking [ Yes ]

Towards the point of return
126
Q5.5 What are the main types of support services that your institution provides to encourage the deferrers and/or leave
takers to return to study? (Select as many as apply)
Deferral (1)
Leave taking (2)
Financial support (1)
▢
▢
Career guidance (2)
▢
▢
Future study guidance (3)
▢
▢
Disability support (4)
▢
▢
Housing service (5)
▢
▢
Individual consulting (6)
▢
▢
Bridging courses (7)
▢
▢
Other (8)
▢
▢
Unsure (9)
▢
▢
Page Break
Display This Question:
If Does your institution have any interventions in place to encourage deferrers and/or leave-takers... =
Deferral [ Yes ]
Or Does your institution have any interventions in place to encourage deferrers and/or leave-takers... =
Leave-taking [ Yes ]

Towards the point of return
127
Q5.6 Does your institution provide support services specifically tailored to deferrers and/or leave takers from any of these
groups?
Deferral (1)
Leave taking (2)
Students from low socio-economic
status backgrounds (1)
▢
▢
Regional and remote students (2)
▢
▢
Students from a non-English
speaking background (3)
▢
▢
Indigenous students (4)
▢
▢
Students with a disability (5)
▢
▢
Women in non-traditional areas (6)
▢
▢
Other (7)
▢
▢
None of the above (8)
▢
▢
Display This Question:
If Does your institution provide support services specifically tailored to deferrers and/or leave ta... = Other
[ Deferral ]
Or Does your institution provide support services specifically tailored to deferrers and/or leave ta... =
Other [ Leave taking ]
Q5.7 Could you please specify the cohort of students that you selected as "Other" in the previous question?
________________________________________________________________

Towards the point of return
128
Display This Question:
If Does your institution have any interventions in place to encourage deferrers and/or leave-takers... =
Deferral [ Yes ]
Or Does your institution have any interventions in place to encourage deferrers and/or leave-takers... =
Leave-taking [ Yes ]
Q5.8 To what extent do you agree with the following statements regarding the overall effectiveness of your institutional
initiatives to encourage the conversion of deferrers and leave takers? (Select one)
Very effective
(1)
Somewhat effective
(2)
Not effective
(3)
Unsure (4)
Conversion of
deferrers (1)
o
o
o
o
Conversion of leave-
takers (2)
o
o
o
o
Display This Question:
If Does your institution have any interventions in place to encourage deferrers and/or leave-takers... =
Deferral [ Yes ]
Or Does your institution have any interventions in place to encourage deferrers and/or leave-takers... =
Leave-taking [ Yes ]
Q5.9 In general, how would you rate the accessibility of these services for deferrers and/or leave takers?
Easy to access
(1)
Difficult to access
(2)
Unsure (3)
Support services for
deferrers (1)
o
o
o
Support services for leave-
takers (2)
o
o
o
End of Block: Section 3: General engagement strategy for deferrers and leave takers
Start of Block: Challenges and constraints

Towards the point of return
129
Q6.1 What constraints, if any, exist with regard to effectively supporting deferrers and/or leave takers to return to study?
(Select as many as apply)
Deferrers (1)
Leave-takers (2)
Policy (1)
▢
▢
Leadership support (2)
▢
▢
Time (3)
▢
▢
Financial resources (4)
▢
▢
Workforce resources (5)
▢
▢
Lack of data (6)
▢
▢
Other (7)
▢
▢
Q6.2 What, if any, are the major challenges for your institution to increase the conversion rate of deferrers and/or leave
takers? (free text)
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Towards the point of return
130
Q6.3 Ideally, what more, if anything, could your institution do to increase the conversion rate of deferrers and/or leave
takers? (free text)
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Q6.4 If your institution has any publicly available resources that are relevant to deferrals and/or leave-taking, would you
mind copying and pasting a link to it?
________________________________________________________________
End of Block: Challenges and constraints

Towards the point of return
131
Appendix 3: Interview guides for semi-
structured interviews with university staff
Low SES student deferrals project - Interview protocol for department/unit director
Brief Introduction of the project and the objectives of the interview
Warm-up questions
Could you please describe your role?
General institutional policies regarding deferrals and leave taking
What is your view of the increasingly flexible study arrangement/life cycle of students? (Probe: given that
students decide to take a break for various reasons at different stages of their study, some may want to do
some travelling, while others may have difficulties to tackle, “taking a break” may not always be a passive
choice but could be beneficial as well)
What visibility do the policies and procedures of deferrals and leave taking have in your institution? Do you
think these policies and procedures are reasonable?
How are issues of deferrals and leave taking reported through University governance activities?
Interventions with deferrers and leave takers
What interventions have been implemented at your institution with deferrers and leave takers?
What specific support services are available for deferrers and leave takers at your institution?
How would you like to evaluate the accessibility of these services to the deferrers/leave takers? (Probe: How
often do they use these services?)
In your view, which interventions/support services are more effective than others? Why?
Does your institution offer any specific interventions/support services targeted at disadvantaged students who
take a leave? If yes, could you please introduce them in a bit detail?
In your view, which interventions/services targeted at disadvantaged students are more effective than others?
Why?
Challenges and constrains
Could you talk about any challenges or constraints for your department/unit to provide better supports to
increase the conversion rate?
In addition to the current interventions and support services, what else do you think could be done to promote
the return to study?
Do you have any other comments in regard with the issue of deferrals and leave taking?
Low SES student deferrals project - Interview protocol for senior executive members

Towards the point of return
132
Brief Introduction of the project and the objectives of the interview
Warm-up questions
Could you please describe your role?
How does your institution position responsibility for oversight of deferral and leave taking? (Probe: any split
responsibilities among senior executive members? E.g. DVC/PVC [equity & diversity? Academic/Education?
Indigenous?])
General institutional policies regarding deferrals and leave taking
How does your institution prioritise the issues of deferrals and leave taking?
What is your view of the increasingly flexible study arrangement/life cycle of students? (Probe: given that
students decide to take a break for various reasons at different stages of their study, some may want to do
some travelling, while others may have difficulties to tackle, “taking a break” may not always be a passive
choice but could be beneficial as well)
What visibility do the policies and procedures of deferrals and leave taking have in your institution?
Do you think these policies and procedures are reasonable? Do you think in the near future (e.g. next five
years) there will be any major changes in these policies and procedures at your institution?
Engagement strategies with deferrers and leave takers
Are there any data collection mechanisms at your institution to monitor or track deferrers and/or leave-takers?
How are communication and engagement strategies positioned in relation to deferrals and leave taking at your
institution? Any specific strategies targeted at disadvantaged students? (low SES? Indigenous? Regional?)
How do business systems and tools reflect engagement with issues of deferrals and leave taking?
In your view, what is the key for your university to facilitate the transitions of deferrers and leave takers back to
study?
Challenges and constrains
Could you talk about any challenges or constraints for your institution to increase the conversion rate?
In addition to the current strategies, what else do you think could be done to promote the return to study?
Do you have any other comments in regard with the issue of deferrals and leave taking?