I have successfully input all my learners and they are all showing correctly funded on the EFA 16-19 Summary of Funding by Student (valid) report, however the same can not be said for the EFA Funding claim report. It makes no sense.
I have claimed element 2 funding for some of these learners and this does not show up on any report, is this correct or have I not entered the correct information whilst inputting my data. All my learners are EFA and I have added Learners Support (ALS) for them all and the learners are in the correct rows on the Funding by student report.
I have contacted the Data Service but as yet have not had a reply.
For 16-19 EFA Study Programme the FIS funding reports are calculating your basic programme funding – put simply as planned hours plus disadvantage funding. High needs learners will not show any additional funding in FIS above the basic planned hours plus disadvantage funding i.e. a full time high needs learner will generate exactly the same funding in FIS as a full time low needs learner.
It may be that your MIS actually allows you to record detail of ALS costs per learner but that won’t make any difference to FIS.
Assuming you have a direct contract then high needs funding works as follows… where a high needs learner has total costs (basic programme costs plus additional support costs) above £10977 you can approach your Local Authority for additional in year funding – however you should only approach your Local Authority for additional funds if you are going to exhaust your High Needs allocation which is set in your contract at a rate of £6000 per number of allocated high needs places (which are calculated from lagged learner numbers). If you don’t have a direct contract then you would have to approach the contract holder who may have a different approach to paying you for high needs places.
Yes all funding is showing correctly except the £6000 and all learners are on the correct row in the FIS report. I was only worrying because the RO6 denotes our allocation for 2014/15 so was a tad worried that the amount was missing off the report, thinking it might affect next years allocation.