Can I ask how everyone is dealing with the prior learning and the TNP. We mostly always account for prior learning and factor that in our agreed price (a few might slip through the cracks initially but we then rectify).
But recently we have fallen foul where the ESFA have found that the learner has had previous funding and therefore made a reduction in the funding available to us. In two cases this has caused us a problem, we haven’t claimed the funding band maximum but the ESFA are still reducing the funding available further.
For example TNP1 is £9,000 (cell BF) funding band maximum is £12,000 (cell BG) but reducing the funding further by £2,866.667 (cell BH) only leaving £6,133.33 (cell BI) funding available which even taking into consideration prior learning doesn’t cover the cost of the apprenticeship for us.
How are other providers dealing with the shortfall, are you then going back to the employer and asking for the difference (cell BH) I cant imagine an employer would be pleased as they’ve already agreed a price (cell BF).
It seems we have been lucky until now, but this is just another stumbling block I need to find a solution too. Many thanks for your help.
Below is the response from the ESFA when queried the funding being drawn down. I particularly dislike the last sentence.
we run analysis on learners to establish where a learner had been previously been enrolled and had drawn down funding on the same apprenticeship programme. This means, if the learners had drawn down funding with yourself, or another training provider, this would affect the total amount that can now be drawn down by yourself in relation to the funding band maximum. To do this, we looked at the Total Price Agreed and the Funding Band Maximum. If you look at the Apps Indicative Earnings Report you will see where the value in column BF and BG are the same, any value in column BH means the learner has previously been enrolled and drawn down funding on the same apprenticeship programme. You might also notice that the value in column BF is less than BG, but there is still a value in column BH, this means that although the negotiated price is less than the funding band maximum, the overall price of what you have agreed and what has already been drawn down exceeds the funding band maximum.
To rectify this issues, you will either need to re-negotiate the cost of the apprenticeship with the Employer for the remaining elements to be delivered, or the employer will need to pay yourself directly any amount over the funding band maximum.
Please note, any value over the Funding Band Maximum must be collected for the Completion Element to be paid.July 1, 2020 at 5:44 am #450018
Ahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, this explains a WHOLE BUNCH OF CONVERSATIONS I’ve had with a client!
I had no idea the Indicative Report from SLD was different (ie includes links to previous episodes of learning) to the FIS one…
So I think you’ve got to add new records to reduce your TNP1 and 2 to what funding is left and get the employer to change it on DAS to clear this problem.
This doesn’t clear the “this is not enough money to deliver the apprenticeship” problem though…
What we really need is a process on DAS that flags this up before/as the App starts with a second provider so decisions can be taken then (and that decision might well be “we can’t deliver for that little funding”), because, if worries about provider collapses come to pass, there’s going to be a whole lot more of this…July 1, 2020 at 12:51 pm #450100
There are only really three options;
– Deliver for the capped amount, possibly resulting in an overall loss.
– Ask the employer to contribute the amount you need to charge that’s above the capped maximum. They might be able to get the original provider to cough up for this if they were way behind with their delivery.
– Deliver a slightly different apprenticeship (it doesn’t get capped if it’s not exactly the same one). If it’s a framework, a different pathway wouldn’t be capped, or you could do the Standard. Not usually an option, but worth looking into.
In theory you shouldn’t need any extra money, but those of us who’ve dealt with this know that some of the original providers were way behind in their delivery compared with their planned duration, and really claimed far too much money for what they did.
I’d say you need to make sure you’ve done these calculations before you enrol someone, but we had an apprentice who declared they’d never done an apprenticeship before, and had actually done a whole year of one, which we only found out when we got capped. We should have checked her PLR better, as it was clearly on there. Even so, the PLR doesn’t tell you the original Price or Planned End Date, so you can’t precisely work out how much you’ll get capped at. The PED the employer thinks is correct, may not be what was in the first provider’s ILR.July 1, 2020 at 1:35 pm #450121
Thank you for your responses, I’ve only just seen the replies. It’s definitely something to keep an eye on a little more closely. But it would definitely be more helpful if we knew the funding cap before price was agreed, as renegotiating after the fact is not good business.July 6, 2020 at 4:39 pm #451162
There are ways of identifying that, and unfortunately ESFA can’t advise until you send them data.
– Ask the student and employer if they’ve done any apprenticeship study in the last 3 or 4 years
– Check the student’s PLR for apprenticeship content before enrolling (create the PDF report, it’s easiest to read)
If either of those show that apprenticeship study has taken place, seek out further info. You can always work out what’s left in the band maximum if you can establish;
– Exactly what framework/pathway or Standard the student was doing*
– Start Date*
– Planned End Date
– Actual End Date*
– Original Price
*These things are on the PLR. Planned End Date and Original Price can only come from the employer and/or provider the student was with at the time.
It’s not always foolproof, but it should catch nearly all cases where you’d get capped.July 6, 2020 at 4:57 pm #451168
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.