I am now so confused I am not sure who to thank, but someone somewhere suggested my issue with ‘ 24+ full funding below level 3’ on my Classroom Learners was to do with not returning a Benefit status indicator. This seems to explain it so whoever you were , thank you very much! God knows what I would do without this Forum as ‘Helpdesk’ is a complete misnomer!
I am now wondering what is the point of DSAT or FIS if this stuff is not highlighted until well after closedown of the period concerned but I guess you all feel that, sigh…….January 16, 2015 at 12:02 pm #12347SFA STAFF
Sorry about the delay in my response. To answer your question about this occurring again in 14/15 I have a response from the funding policy team:
The report didn’t identify some of the issues in 13/14 – and wasn’t designed to when the DSATs for 13/14 were originally developed (report 140-110 focussed on workplace learning only according to the report description).
As a result of the issues we identified in-year (which was after the reports for 13/14 were developed), it has been updated with additional information to include 24+ learners in general for 14/15.
Further developments to the suite of DSAT reports are being discussed with PFA at present, with the possibility of further reports being made available.
In addition I’m looking at what we can do in the validation rules that could to produce warnings to the various scenarios.
ILR Specification Team
Skills Funding AgencyJanuary 19, 2015 at 9:22 am #12396
Maybe a new tendering round for DSATS would be useful? Make KPMG pick up their game and/or get us a better product…
Does seem rather unusual that it’s been one organisation producing it for a decade with no obvious competition…January 19, 2015 at 9:46 am #12401
Thank you for grasping this nettle.
Are you saying that the issue was identified in-year, as in within 13/14? That seems to be the inference of what you have reported. If so then howcome there was no announcement at all about this until after 13/14 closed?
I think your idea of adding new Validation Rules in 14/15 to catch these things can only be a good thing, as the frustration for so many is to only discover something is wrong after the event and when it is too late to do anything about it, and I just cannot understand why that should happen. As I have said before, FIS stands for Funding Information System and yet it gives no Information about this Funding issue, so something must be wrong.
CasparJanuary 19, 2015 at 10:15 am #12402
Thank you for the update on the data issues validation and reporting. I do understand that due to the number of different programmes and complexity of the multitude of funding rules it would be unrealistic to expect that all data errors are validated by FIS and the HUB and that to an extent providers should ensure that errors and omissions accepted that their data is correctly reported.
The following is not an issue but an example of where data is incorrectly reported in the ILR but validation fails to report an error even though a provider and the SFA would expect it to do so.
Age for the funding year is determined from the learner’s age at 31st, a learner was 18 at that date this year as they did not turn 19 until the next day (DOB 01/09/1995) therefore the SOF should be recorded as 107 (EFA) for a continuing aim and any new aims started would also be eligible for EFA funding.
The SOF for one aim was incorrectly entered as 105 (SFA) and it was expected that this should have been picked up by validation rule DataofBirth_20: If the learner is under 19 on 31 August of the current teaching year then the Source of funding must be the EFA, unless the learning aim is part of a 16-18 Traineeship .
No error or warning was reported by FIS or the HUB and the funding calculations ignored the SOF and calculated and recorded the funding as EFA so not issue except that the data (SOF) was incorrect.
I do not know what the answer is too incorrect data and validating the ILR as the problem seems to be more related at a higher level in SFA and ministerial policy and the now many different programmes with different rules and funding that the SFA has evolved since the introduction of their simplified matrix funding system. The only advice I would give to the SFA would be to follow the EFA example and stick to the principles of the funding methodology and not to hold providers responsible for what are issues caused by the SFA and failure of their software and systems to handle all the changes made to the matrix methodology.
In short it has now all got a bit too complicated for the SFA but good luck with sorting it out.January 20, 2015 at 9:27 am #12446SFA STAFF
DateofBirth_20 runs on learners with a funding model of 25 or 82 (EFA funded learners) and is triggered if the learner is under 19 on the 31st August of the current teaching year and does not have a source of funding of 107 and is not a traineeship. If you have any data that is showing this rule was incorrectly running please send it to myself so I can investigate to the following address: email@example.com
ILR Specification Team
Skills Funding AgencyJanuary 20, 2015 at 9:45 am #12448
Can I please ask if anyone knows if this spreadsheet is to be returned to SFA with the answer in column “Is this a data error y/n” and “Comments” section filled in? If so, what is the deadline and what are the possible outcomes?
Our issues are relating to the Employment & Benefit section, we have proof of learners claiming JSA and therefore being eligible for full funding, but I am not sure how to prevent the clawback as no instructions have been issued. I logged the call with the Service Desk as well, so will post an answer if I get it. ThanksJanuary 20, 2015 at 10:06 am #12449
I think you may have missed the point.
‘If the learner is under 19 on 31 August of the current teaching year then the Source of funding must be the EFA, unless the learning aim is part of a 16-18 Traineeship’
is not reflected by the error condition and for the learner in question the SOF was not EFA and the learner was on a normal EFA study programme not a 16-18 traineeship and the rule description implies too the provider that an error should have been reported but the actual error condition does not trigger an error as the rule and condition do not match.January 20, 2015 at 10:11 am #12450
At the risk of starting a whole new thread about this issue – I am now trying to complete the spreadsheet that the SFA sent, but cannot work out whether I should be putting Y or N in the Data Error column! We have made errors in data (ie. not including the BSI) so do I tick Y – or are they using the Y as indicating that it is a data error in claiming the full value for the student?
I am assuming that they will look at this column to make calculations on the amount that they claw back – or will the comments box, where we can clarify what we mean be used?
Thank you to whoever may have the answer 🙂
PhilippaJanuary 26, 2015 at 2:33 pm #12718
The SFA issued this on Friday
Data errors 2013 to 2014.
Some providers have been asked to complete a spreadsheet to respond to 2013/2014 data errors. If you are affected by this and haven’t already responded, the following additional information may help you when completing the feedback spreadsheet:
A. If you identify that the learning aim or apprentice has had funding claimed in error enter “Y” in the ‘Is this a data error? y/n’ column (M). You do not have to comment as to why unless you want to.
B. If the funding claimed is correct then enter “N” in the ‘Is this a data error? y/n’ column (M) and enter in the ‘comments’ column (N) why this is. This means that you acknowledge that your ILR data does not support the claim, but you have additional evidence in the learning agreement that does.
C. Please do not change the structure of the spreadsheet including adding or removing columns or rows.January 26, 2015 at 2:49 pm #12719
Please can I ask those who have been wrestling with their 13/14 conundrums to post their thoughts on this thread http://feconnect.education.gov.uk/forums/topic/1314-reviewing/ , please?
CasparJanuary 27, 2015 at 1:36 pm #12765
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.