1

Public bodies and

policies

THE STUDENT AND

CAMPUS LIFE

CONTRIBUTION (CVEC)

2018 and subsequent financial years

Public thematic report

Summary

May 2025

2

Introduction

The Act of 8 March 2018 on student guidance and success introduced the student and

campus life contribution (CVEC). This tax aims to promote a high-quality student and campus

life, initiated and developed by a new form of ‘university democracy’, based on the involvement

of the students concerned.

The CVEC is paid by students in initial higher education and allocated to public higher

education institutions, consular higher education institutions, private institutions of public

interest, and the regional student services centres (Crous). The amount paid per student for

the 2024–2025 academic year was €103.

The overall assessment of the first years of implementation is broadly positive. While

the benefits for students are indeed real, the contribution relies on a complex system: its

management needs to be improved, the direct benefits for students strengthened, and greater

transparency ensured in how the funds are used.

Real benefits for students

The introduction of the contribution coincided with an increase in purchasing power for

the majority of students compared to their previous situation, due to the reform of the student

social security system, which placed greater emphasis on national solidarity for their benefit.

In 2023-2024, the total amount of CVEC paid by students amounted to €170 million. In

six years, nearly €900 million (net of reimbursements) was collected and redistributed.

The amounts collected have helped improve student life through a range of initiatives by

institutions and Crous centres in the areas of health, culture, sport, reception and social

support.

This has led to the creation of new student facilities in universities, psychological

counselling and support services for students, community grocery stores, ‘zero waste fridges’,

sports and wellness workshops, artistic workshops and digital equipment assistance for

students.

Allocation of funds by thematic area (in €)

Source: Court of Accounts based on data from the 2022 and 2023 surveys

conducted by the DGESIP among beneficiary institutions

FSDIE: Solidarity and Development Fund for Student Initiatives. The 2023

data are provisional.

3

Incomplete use of the allocated funds

The surpluses resulting from the incomplete use of CVEC funds currently amount to

€100 million out of the approximately €900 million collected between 2018 and 2024.

This is why improved management is needed, to ensure these surpluses — mostly built

up during the scheme’s early years — are used without delay and to the benefit of students.

Highly complex management in need of improvement

Despite efforts to simplify it, the management of the CVEC remains complex, as it is

based on a dual distinction between students (liable or not) and institutions (beneficiaries or

not) and results in redistribution through horizontal equalisation between students and

between institutions, without compensation from the State.

The management of the contribution still needs improvement in several areas.

Underestimating the CVEC revenue cap over three years led to repayments totalling

€14 million being made to the State’s general budget. As a result, these funds, collected from

students, could not be used to support student life. A more accurate forecast of tax revenue

and its cap is needed in future to avoid such repayments.

The amount paid per student should also be clarified, and any increase limited. It rose

from €90 in 2018 to €103 in 2024. The method used to calculate this increase should be

clarified. Controlling future increases would help ensure that the contribution remains a

moderate part of students’ start-of-year expenses.

Changes in the amount of the CVEC (in €)

Source: Court of Accounts based on data from INSEE and the French Education Code

Institutions receive the proceeds of the tax in two instalments, an initial payment and a

variable portion. The latter component increased significantly between 2018 and 2024,

depriving institutions of visibility at the beginning of the calendar year on the total amount to

be collected. A rebalancing in favour of the first payment would be beneficial to institutions.

The French Education Code determines the shares of CVEC revenue allocated to

funding student association projects and social initiatives for students (30 % of the initial

4

payment) and preventive medicine (15 % of the initial payment). The procedures for

implementing these 15 % and 30 % thresholds, which are not applied uniformly, should be

clarified.

Indicators to ensure the proper use of the tax would also be useful.

A simpler collection and redistribution system

Efforts were made in 2023 to streamline the initial payment, collection and distribution

schedules and in 2024 to standardise the amounts paid to institutions.

At the heart of these operations is the Crous, which has proven effective without

incurring additional collection costs. However, further clarification is still needed to improve

revenue recovery and facilitate the implementation of the scheme.

For this collection and redistribution work, it would be useful to set up a committee

bringing together the Ministry of Higher Education and Research and the national student

services centre ( (Cnous) to develop monitoring indicators, share a risk management plan, set

targets for the upcoming campaign and report on their achievement.

Six years after the introduction of the CVEC, neither the Ministry of Higher Education

and Research nor the Crous knows the exact number of students liable for the tax, which

means that they cannot

ensure that all of them are actually paying it. The process of identifying

non-beneficiary institutions must be continued in order to achieve full collection of the tax.

The Ministry of Higher Education and Research must ensure that it formally notifies the

Cnous of the amounts of tax and fees to be collected by each institution for the following

academic year.

The question of who will bear the costs of collection by the Crous will be addressed in

the future targets and performance contract between the Cnous and the State.

The Crous have operated an internal scheme called

Culture Actions

since 1989,

financed from its own resources. When a project meets both the criteria set out in this scheme

and those of the CVEC, the Crous grant their fundings from the CVEC. A review of the

Culture

Actions

projects financed by CVEC funds would make it possible to quantify the amounts thus

saved from the Crous’ own resources.

A benefit for students to be strengthened

There is still no clear definition of student life and campus life. Such a definition would

make it easier to determine the list of themes authorised for the use of the CVEC.

Student involvement in the use of the CVEC to finance projects that meet their needs

should also be strengthened. To this end, students could be fully involved in the various bodies

responsible for making decisions on the tax. Institutions must ensure that the relevant

committees are made up of at least 50 % students.

Close attention must be paid to institutions where significant amounts of CVEC funds

are allocated to long-term staffing needs, with budgetary measures taken to secure this

funding.

As beneficiaries of a portion of the tax, the Crous must take particular care to increase

the amounts allocated to projects for students from non-beneficiary institutions.

The benefits for students linked to the multiplier effect of partnerships between

institutions and local authorities and of Crous co-financing of CVEC credits should be

strengthened. This ‘leverage effect’ is not currently measured.

5

Student initiatives led by associations and social actions of the Student Initiative

Solidarity and Development Fund (FSDIE) are financed by CVEC credits. To avoid any

confusion about the main source of funding, the name “

FSDIE

” should be removed.

Greater transparency

The provision of information relating to the contribution must be improved. Greater

communication on the operation of the tax and the projects it funds is needed, aimed at

students, to improve their understanding of how it is used and their acceptance of paying it,

and to encourage greater involvement on their part.

Action reports should be more structured and presented in a standardised format, and

the reliability of responses to the ministry’s annual survey should be improved.

Finally, the information provided to Parliament should be expanded so it can properly

exercise its oversight of this earmarked tax.

Ultimately, any analysis of future developments must take into account that the CVEC

cannot, on its own, meet all student needs. Addressing their situations and needs—particularly

in terms of finances, food, health, and housing—falls within the scope of public policies that

clearly require an interministerial approach, as well as the direct involvement of the ministry

responsible for higher education.