SFA Funding Claim Errors 2013/14

From Thursday 10 December, feconnect will be replaced by ESFA Communities.

Feconnect is being replaced by a more robust, accessible service. ESFA Communities is now live and so feconnect will be read only from Thursday 10 December 2020. From this date it will not be possible to create or reply to topics or posts. Feconnect users will need to create a new ESFA communities account to post, reply or subscribe for email alerts.



Home Forums Data issues SFA Funding Claim Errors 2013/14

This topic contains 60 replies, has 27 voices, and was last updated by  Caspar Verney 5 years, 10 months ago.

Viewing 25 posts - 26 through 50 (of 61 total)
  • Author
    Posts

  • steveh
    Participant

    And to you as well Martin!

    Just one little thing, the auditors (KPMG, Baker Tilly, PwC, PFA) *can’t* have spotted this because it wasn’t something in the audit papers for them to look at.

    What I also don’t get is why not every provider has got the letter, I just did a report very similar to the one you’ve got there and I’ve got c. a dozen (out of 200) that would end up as questions (that i’m happy i’ll have the paperwork for), so why (rhetorical) haven’t I got a letter?

     
    #11787

    adambetts
    Participant

    Any compliance process that claws back 2013/14 money in spring 2015 is clearly not fit for purpose. FIS should simply not fund anything where it is black and white, and we should be informed at R13 of any data anomalies with the detail. I’m presuming since we’ve had a letter that there is something in their queries. Maybe steveh you are below some kind of de minimis tolerance?

    Never quite understood the reasoning behind taking out fee remission reason from the ILR – would save all of these elaborate SQL queries trying to derive learner status from emp stats, and trying to figure out which emp stats relate to which enrolments!

    More importantly, Merry Christmas!

     
    #11788

    Martin West
    Participant

    Check the HUB you may have information on the learners / provision affected

     
    #12147

    lapsed_user
    Participant

    Morning everyone,

    I have checked the Hub this morning and my error report is on there, it includes 59 learning aims with the error category ’24+ full funding below level 3′. What’s confusing me is that I’m not exactly sure what the error with there learners is, the majority of them are unemployed learners but I think there are many more 24+ unemployed learners on our system then what this report pulled up, so I’m thinking there must be something else to it? I’ve had a look at the Funding Rules document for 13/14 and can’t seem to find anything that explains what I’ve missed? Throughout the year, DSAT, FIS and Hub reports have never rejected these learners so I’m wondering which but of information I’ve missed over the year…

    Does anybody else have the same issue?

    Steve

     
    #12173

    Phil Rossiter
    Participant

    Hi Steve,

    Did you return a benefit status of any sort in the ILR for the learners concerned (assuming it’s not English/Maths)? I think this is might be what is referred to in the Funding Rules (Para 41.5 of the Eligibility for Funding Annex) although, as you say, isn’t flagged in FIS/Hub or, I think, DSAT.

    Phil

     
    #12177

    Martin West
    Participant

    Hi Steve,
    Similar issue here that was found to be due to either employment status returned as not known and or Benefit status indicator missing but as evidence exists in most cases to support full funding then this is more an issue of incorrect data returned as against an over claim although some funding has been claimed in error.
    HTH

     
    #12180

    lapsed_user
    Participant

    Hi Martin/Phil,

    Thanks for your responses, I’ve had a look through our list now and have a few patterns. As you both suggested, some of the learners in question had a blank BSI field. Some also had a slight cross-over between classroom-based and Apprenticeship, where the learner was unemployed doing some training with us, and then went onto an Apprenticeship which had a new employment status created, but then one of the CBL aims was put on the system with a start date after the new employment status which is an error as they would’ve started it prior to the Apprenticeship.

    It’s frustrating as I feel in some way I should’ve picked this up during the year by manually checking the data, but on the other hand I would expect FIS, Hub or DSAT to be picking these type of anomalies up, or at the very least whatever special system the SFA have used to generate these new errors should’ve been run prior to the closing of the contract year, allowing me to correct them in time. The SFA are continuously expressing the importance of timely and accurate data, yet none of their own systems highlight these errors until 3 months after the year has closed?

    Sorry to rant, I just don’t know whether to blame myself for not manually picking up these anomalies within my data or to blame the SFA for their systems not being up to the task! 🙁

    Steve

     
    #12187

    rtrain
    Participant

    I have identified that the ones on our list are 24+ classroom learning missing the BSI indicator stating they are in receipt of benefits. (as Steve stated our checks of FIS, DSATS and HUB never flagged this).

    I noticed someone commented that 24+ classroom learners should be co-funded, is this still the case if they are in receipt of JSA? or is it dependent on their prior attainment?

    Thanks

     
    #12193

    paultaylor
    Participant

    In our report we have a small group of Workplace learners (Train to Gain on old language) who have been flagged as fully funded when the report says that they should be co-funded. They are 24+ level 2 learners and we agree that the funding guidance states that they should have been coded as co-funded.

    Our issue is that these learners are not flagged in the DSATs, and that we thought that there was a report testing this. Report 140-110 uses a logic that we thought would pick up such learners; SFA funded, 19+, WPL = 1, FFI = 1. Our learners meet the criteria used in the logic, and therefore we had assumed that this report was testing for learners with this coding error. However, this is obviously not the case.

    As mentioned above in some of the other responses this is hugely frustrating, as we have invested a great deal of time in using the DSATs to test and cleanse our data, and sign the final funding submission off as clean. This information suggests that we should have been testing for these through a separate mechanism, but that this is only flagged after the end of the year.

    Does anyone else have this issue?

     
    #12206

    lapsed_user
    Participant

    Hi Paul,

    Along with the Classroom-Based anomalies I mentioned in my earlier post, I too have around 20 learners in exactly the same position as yours. So from approx. 50 different reports using SFA systems alone (FIS, HUB, DSAT), none of these errors were ever queried, otherwise I would’ve fixed them prior to the year closing.

    Steve

     
    #12208

    Pauline Elliott
    Participant

    Where on the Hub did you find your error report, I’ve looked and can’t see anything?

    Thanks in advance.

     
    #12209

    Martin West
    Participant

    Hi Steve and Paul,
    Yes this is all very frustrating but we cannot hold the SFA responsible because of our data issues.
    Paul you may have a point with DSAT even the latest version for report 15S-100’ 19+ learners with full funding claimed’ only seems to return data for Apprenticeships when the description and logic indicates it should pick up workplace 19+ and 24+ classroom learners.

    In the end it is the provider’s responsibility to ensure their claims are correct and it would be unfair to blame the SFA because the FIS/HUB validation or DSAT did not indicate these errors.
    Keep in mind that in the real world financial audits can go back 6 years.

     
    #12210

    Simon Cruddace
    Participant

    Pauline, this is from the other thread about 13/14 Data Errors

    Maria posted this :
    “you should be able to find under the Contracts & Finances tab – hover over the tab & select “contracts” – a folder should appear on the right under the Contract Documents heading. Click on the folder & then find the spreadsheet you can only see 5 documents at a time so use the arrows if necessary to see the next 5.”

    Also Paul Dallaway added:
    “I found our version in Contracts & Finances with a title 2014/15 ALO-*******-Contract Document but when I hovered over the Excel icon it changed to 13-14 Data Errors.xlsx”

    I would never have found ours without these posts, so massive thanks to them both!

     
    #12215

    Pauline Elliott
    Participant

    Thank you Simon, I would never have found it either!

     
    #12216
    SFA STAFF

    markshield
    Participant

    I feel that I should mention that we do not have any ILR validation rules to prevent this from occurring as there are exceptions that prevent it from being a simple yes or no. Please see pages 125-130 of the SFA Funding Rules for further details.

    Regards

    Mark Shield
    ILR Specification Team
    Skills Funding Agency

     
    #12221

    lapsed_user
    Participant

    Hi Mark/Martin,

    Fully understand that it is our responsibility to ensure our data is accurate and that the SFA systems I mentioned are just there to assist with this. As you say there aren’t any specific ILR validation rules to prevent these type of errors, but unless someone at the SFA has been running manual checks through everybodys data after R14, there must’ve been an SFA system that the batch files have gone through to highlight these data discrepancies? If whatever system/script has produced all of these error reports we are discussing can be added into the DSAT/Hub at least it would give us the list of possible errors for us to then look through, within year, to assess whether it is a data error on our part, or an exception?

    Steve

     
    #12222

    Martin West
    Participant

    Hi Mark,
    Yes and I can except this but the DSAT report for ‘19+ learners with full funding claimed’ that should have identified these learners failed to do this for workplace and classroom learning, if this can be rectified this may avoid similar errors in 2014/15.

     
    #12223

    Martin West
    Participant

    Hi Steve,
    As Mark has said there are exceptions that prevent it from being a simple yes or no for these errors to be included in the validation rules but this is not the case for DSAT that is intended to produce reporting of possible audit issues so the best solution would be to update DSAT to include reporting for these issues.

     
    #12224

    lapsed_user
    Participant

    Further to the comments in the above thread, I hope this provides further support on how to access the relevant files on the Hub. You will find the document in the ‘Contract documents’ section of the ‘Contracts & Finances’ tab (see screen shot below). The naming convention is as follows 2014/2015 [your 2014/15 contract number, e.g. ANW-11111] [the version of your contract, e.g. 3] Contract Document. The file is an Excel spreadsheet.

    Data errors png

     
    #12227

    Sweeney47
    Participant

    I understand that these aren’t Yes or No issues which makes it hard to apply validation rules to but there are other ways of ensuring validation is followed. If they truly are an exception, why not have any grey area learners show up as a warning rather than an error – at least then the provider will know that they need to check these learners and provide a justification at audit.

    Forgive my ignorance (not had any letter nor deal with this funding so going off what I’ve read and interpreted) but is this not a similar situation to the condition of funding for EFA study programmes in that if a learner isn’t doing an English or Maths aim they flag up as an error/warning UNLESS a provider ticks the box stating that they fulfill an exception criteria? In that way the Provider is acknowledging that they have assessed the learner as eligible to not sit these aims. Can this issue not be the same? Learner listed as fully funded – doesn’t fulfill exception criteria or exception criteria not listed in ILR – Error. Learner listed as fully funded – exception criteria listed in ILR – OK?

    This doesn’t rule out providers getting it wrong but at least it will bring their attention to a potential problem in their data.

     
    #12232

    Caspar Verney
    Participant

    I have not had to deal with the problems outlined here myself, but I too have a real problem with the Authorities revealing alleged data errors after the final closure of the year thus preventing any Provider from dealing with the issue at the appropriate time. Whilst I accept that the Rules are published, is this not yet another indication that the systems that everyone has to rely on simply do not do everything that they should?

    FIS is supposed to stand for Funding Information System and yet it does not give any information on these supposedly funding-critical issues. Similarly it appears that DSAT even has reports (according to what I read above) that should catch these issues, but do not.

    I know that FIS and the Hub have had some appalling problems and are still not out of the woods yet, but there is some severe dislocation between the reality that Providers are having to deal with and the official line that has told us that there are no problems and this is a case in point.

    As has been repeatedly said above, if the data can somehow be tested after the year end to reveal something, then there can be no reason why this cannot be done throughout the year and help Providers to help the SFA/EFA, and the SFA/EFA to help Providers.

     
    #12240

    aureliaadmin
    Participant

    Hi,

    We have also received various emails and letters, some not containing much information. So all of your comments have been very helpful.
    Through this thread i managed to find the error spreadsheet, I have come across an error which we are stuck on if anyone can advice.

    We had a learner who was signed up to do the Functional skills ICT, as Fully funded, this has been flagged as the following error “24+ full funding below level 3”.

    We believed Functional Skills to be Fully funded. Maths & English at a higher rate than the ICT.
    I look forward to any help.

    Thanks Ali

     
    #12321

    miaw
    Participant

    Did anyone receive a script in Latin in the ‘Contract documents’ section of the ‘Contracts & Finances’ tab ? I have copied only a couple of lines:

    Row 1 Col 1 field value. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
    Row 2 Col 1 field value. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

     
    #12331

    Phil Rossiter
    Participant

    Hi Miaw,

    Were you trying to download the actual file of data errors? Are you using Chrome? We had something which sounds similar, switched to IE and it magically worked…

    Phil

     
    #12332

    miaw
    Participant

    Thank you Phil..

     
    #12333
Viewing 25 posts - 26 through 50 (of 61 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.