EFA Reconciliation – Entitlement Funding

Home Forums Data issues EFA Reconciliation – Entitlement Funding

This topic contains 12 replies, has 8 voices, and was last updated by  warrilowk 7 years, 2 months ago.

Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
  • Author

  • MartinOutlaw

    We have just received a P10 12/13 EFA reconciliation statement. Table 2 lists in column B, learners who do not meet the GLH threshold for entitlement, and column C those who appear to meet the threshold but and not currently coded for entitlement. It then, kindly directs you to “ILR Funding Returns, Annex E, Paragraphs 13-16” for guidance on using DSAT to check this.

    However, the paragraphs refer to 336 GLH, and the DSAT 13.21 reports appear to run based on a 336 threshold; My understanding was that the threshold was 420. Am I mistaken?

    The guidance refers to reports, 120-03-204 and 120-05-104, these have not been updated as they are now 130-03-204 and 130-05-104, so is it that the hours haven’t been updated either?

    If I am to explain to my directors I haven’t claimed entitlement against all of these leaners, and the KPMG and the EFA have their figures wrong then I have to be absolutely sure.



    Colin Barber

    I’ve just been doing the same exercise as Martin and have exactly the same question. A very early response would be much appreciated.




    There are scattered references here and there: see, for instance, http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/14906/1/guide%20to%20funding%20foundation%20learning.pdf pages 19 – 20.




    That is what I expected, but that is YPLA 11/12 guidance, the issue that I have is with the EFA 12/13 guidance and the details that have come up in the reconciliation statement.

    I have been working to 420, yet the reconciliation statement indicates I have 29 learners that “appear to meet the GLH threshold for entitlement but no claim made”. Needless to say the DSAT report does not have 29 learners on it, but those that are have between 336 and 420 hours.

    If there are more learners in column B than column C you will automatically have the funds recovered. Not only do we need to know exactly what the threshold is, we also need to know that it being applied correctly, particularly in respect of FT learners who cross two years, but are PT in each.



    Martin West

    Hi Martin,
    It is 420 but the following may be of interest for the year definition:

    Entitlement may only be claimed for full time learners and may be claimed once for any 12 month period. The EFA has agreed the following guidance for providers with learners whose programme is full time across two funding years but is not full time in any one funding year. For these learners, providers may claim the entitlement in the first funding year rather than the second if either of the following conditions are met:
    a. the majority of their programme is being delivered in the first year, or
    b. they are enrolled on their full time programmes before 1 May.

    Another Martin



    We have just received the same report and also disagree. It would be nice if they told us which learners they were referring to.
    Martin O – What have you done? Have you reported it or found out how they get their data?


    Paul ESFA

    Hi all

    I shared this discussion with an EFA colleague who said that the hours threshold for entitlement for a student is 420glh and that hasn’t changed. The 336glh figure is the minimum threshold used in the reports to determine students potentially eligible for entitlement in year one where they cross academic years (they should be studying with the aim of meeting or exceeding the 420 glh threshold ultimately. Their understanding is that the majority of activity should be in year one to be claimed in year one – hence the 336 threshold).

    Their ILR funding returns guidance refers to this on page 30. http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/e/ilr funding returns 2012 13.pdf


    Paul Kelman
    The information authority



    Just a brief question – Prince’s trust programmes are 420 GLH but our org seems uneasy about claiming entitlement funding for them and other such RORO provision.

    Any ard and fast rules preventing this? I seem to think that we code up all of these types of learners as inelligible for the entitlement funding.



    Has this report been sent to colleges or is it something that you have downloaded from OLDC, please?
    Should I be worried that I haven’t seen this yet?
    Many thanks



    If I am correct, colleges are not reconciled on their EFA provision, so I would not expect you to have received the document.

    I have not report this as an issue to the data service, as I am not convinced that there is one. The learners showing in column C are “Potential” learners (Thanks Paul), but I think it would have help if they had not chosen the old threshold as the criteria for their report. Our learners in column B concern me, I think that this is as a result of PICS not sending all the data that it should, and I have an open query with them regarding that point.




    Hi Martin – Could you let me know when you have received a reply from PICs – Thanks



    Jaci – Will do.



    Thanks Martin
    One I can cross off my list
    Much appreciated

Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.