Month End Apps Co-Investment Contributions Report

Feconnect has been replaced by ESFA communities.

Feconnect is read only and it is not possible to create or reply to topics or posts. To search feconnect we suggest you use site specific searches. ESFA Communities is now live. Feconnect users will need to create a new ESFA communities account to post, reply or subscribe for email alerts.



Home Forums Data issues Month End Apps Co-Investment Contributions Report

This topic contains 5 replies, has 3 voices, and was last updated by  Anamitailor 1 month, 4 weeks ago.

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • Author
    Posts

  • Ruth CJ
    Spectator

    Hello,

    I’ve got two really significant issues with this report. Before I send the below to the AS, have I missed a trick? Is anyone else struggling with this?

    The report shows rows for enrolments that don’t exist in 20/21. This happens when that student still has an apprenticeship enrolment in 20/21, but on a different apprenticeship. The report should only show rows for current apprenticeships, not all historic apprenticeships for a current student. It makes it really difficult to find the real issues, as these rows show as employers owing us for previous years (value in column Q), but with no payments (nothing in column P). I’ve checked, and all the rows like this did have full employer payments in the 19/20 R14. There’s no way of telling in this report whether this is a completed apprenticeship in a previous year, I have to spot them one at a time as investigate, by matching on Ref No and Start Date. Can these anomalous rows be removed, or at least have the correct data in column P to show that payments were received?

    Now that non-levy payers are recorded as Apprenticeship Contract Type 1, the report doesn’t seem to recognise that we still require contributions from those employers. I have a non-levy employer, who has paid their 5% contribution, so this is showing as a value in column R. However, there’s no value in column S as there should be. They’re just the ones I can see have paid. Any non-levy employer coded as ACT 1, who owes money but hasn’t paid, just won’t even appear on this report, which is a major problem. These non-levy but ACT 1 apprenticeships need including on this report, and we need a column that indicates the difference between a levy payer and a non-levy payer. Several providers have suggested using ACT 3 for the non-levy payers using DAS, and that would resolve this issue, as it would help include them on this report, and give us visibility on the difference without adding another column.

     
    #473953

    Martin West
    Spectator

    Hi Ruth,
    I do not have the same issues with this report, as per the following the report is intended to show (Historic) previous years co-investment.
    171. The report will
    • Identify apprentices in the current year’s ILR who have had co-investment values generated for payments due from employers, including previous years, or where payments from employers have been collected as shown in ILR “PMR” records

    While I agree it may be difficult to interpret the report I have not experienced the 19/20 R14 issue you have reported, you will have non-levy employers who have paid their full 5% contribution but column S is only intended to show the contributions in this funding year and not the total contributions collected.

    I also do not see the need for an ACT 3 to identify the difference between levy non-levy on DAS although it would be helpful if they included a funding line column.
    HTH

     
    #473961

    Ruth CJ
    Spectator

    Why on earth would a report show historic and completed apprenticeships, just because that student happens to now be on another apprenticeship? It’s non-sensical. Also, the data is plain wrong. I could cope with the rows being there is they correctly identified the historic payment, and not just the historic debt, making it look like we’re due some money when you filter for rows where there is money due for previous years, but no money collected (Q is > 0, and P and R are 0).

    I don’t understand your middle statement. My comments on column S were unrelated to students who had data in the 19/20 R14. They are separate issues. My issue with column S, is that it’s empty for apprentices where we are definitely owed the 5% contribution in this year. The reason for that is because they are ACT 1, and the report doesn’t seem to have been coded to take into account that an ACT 1 apprenticeship might require the 5% contribution. I have two employers that owe us 5% that aren’t on this report at all, because it’s treating them as levy payers, and there is no PMR yet to push them into this report. I have no difficulty interpreting the report, just with the inaccurate and missing data.

     
    #474009

    Martin West
    Spectator

    As I said I have not found the data to be inaccurate or missing in the 1000+ records

     
    #474041

    Ruth CJ
    Spectator

    That’s really weird, because our is consistently wrong on every single row that is for an apprenticeship that doesn’t exist in 20/21 (a zero in the total PMR in previous years, when I know there were payments and they showed correctly in the R14 report). Not a single employer that is ACT 1 and non-levy/non-small, is included on the report unless they have made a contribution. I know we had some in the R03. I’ll see what R04 comes up with.

     
    #474047
    SFA STAFF

    Anamitailor
    Keymaster

    Hi Ruth,

    Please can you raise a helpdesk ticket with specific examples so we can get this investigated for you.

    Kind Regards

    Anami

     
    #474058
Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.