This topic contains 27 replies, has 7 voices, and was last updated by Anonymous 5 years, 8 months ago.
Could anyone confirm whether or not there is any additional funding attached to Traineeship enrolments?
GarryJanuary 28, 2014 at 8:40 am #4882
Sorry do not fully understand the question:
Do you mean over and above the funding generated from what you report in the ILR ?January 28, 2014 at 8:52 am #4883
No, I do actually mean what is generated on the ILR. I’m not expecting it to but just wanted to check my assumption.
GarryJanuary 28, 2014 at 10:26 am #4891
A Traineeship is funded for the core elements of work placement, work preparation training and English and/or maths (where required).
For EFA funded learners the aims will comprise the total hours claimed for the study programme.
For SFA funded learners each individual aim is funded and in addition job outcome payments will apply to all learning aims, except the work placement. Learners will also be able to access Learning Support and Exceptional Learning Support
In addition regulated qualifications (including units of qualifications) up to and including Level 2 approved for funding that will help the learner move into work or remove a barrier to them entering work can be included.
That’s about all I knowJanuary 28, 2014 at 11:06 am #4896
Hi Garry & Martin,
As Martin says, the total of the Planned Hours and the Planned EEP Hours together put a Traineeship learner into one of the funding brackets and that decides the base rate. That is then multiplied by your Provider Factors as supplied by your Funding Body and normally based on last year’s figures unless you are a newly starting Provider, in which case they give you a “best-guess”.
However for SFA funded Traineeships (which I have first hand experience of) I am afraid I must disagree with Martin’s comments. It is only the whole Traineeship that is funded and there is no funding for individual Aims. Also as there is no Programme Aim (until next year) you cannot claim LSF like you would for, say, an Apprenticeship (because LSF is only recorded against the Programme Aim).
CasparJanuary 28, 2014 at 12:45 pm #4903
How do you reconcile this then,
For SFA Traineeships from:
For the English, maths, work preparation and any vocational elements the provider will earn funding across the planned number of months in learning using the standard ASB funding method with the achievement element earned upon the achievement of the qualifications/units.
SFA traineeships are for those aged 19-23January 28, 2014 at 3:17 pm #4913
Hi Martin et al,
I see that it gets complicated, but I suppose that is Simplified Funding for you.
I can also find this sentence on page 23: “For 19-23 Traineeships the Skills Funding Agency will apply the method that is used for the ASB. This means that providers will earn funding a cross the number of months learning.”
Both what you have stated and the above quote appear to apply to SFA funded 19-23, but I was referring to SFA funded 16-18 Traineeships (where the Provider has no EFA Contract and hence they are funded by the SFA). That document that you provided the hyperlink for also states on page 23 that “16-19 Traineeships are funded using the EFA methodology” – this implies funding at the beginning, but in practice I am seeing the SFA paying in equal chunks over the months of the Traineeship. At R05 they were still doing this with no 20% Retention for Completion (as witnessed by the OLDC PFR Summary against which we have been paid and the R06 PFR Summary from OLDC shows exactly the same). However I can see in the new Occupancy Report from OLDC that 20% Completion is suggested for a 16-18 Traineeship, but this does not match the PFR Summary which is actually driving payments – so as clear as mud again!
I have also been consulting the Data Service about this and they have said that the Traineeship is funded over a maximum of 6 months and the timing is dictated by the minimum of the LearnStartDate (A27) and the maximum of the LearnPlanEndDate (A28) taken from the Work Experience and the Work Placement and NOT from the Maths or English.
Further according to the funding reports currently available that I have seen the money is being paid against the Traineeship and not against any individual Aim (the latest Occupancy Report from OLDC annoyingly only shows a Traineeship as a single line with no Learning Aim Reference at all).
I hope that the above delivers some clarity at least in this very murky pond, but I would be very grateful for more help, please.January 28, 2014 at 6:57 pm #4921
I think what has muddied the water is that reporting has to include elements where the FM and SOF do not match, this is how I understand the simplified funding system as it applies to traineeships.
Traineeships funding is determined by the following codes:
FM 25 and SOF 107 are for 16-19 traineeships (EFA contract)
FM 35 and SOF 105 are for 19-24 traineeships (SFA contract)
FM 25 and SOF 105 are for 16-19 traineeships for providers who deliver 16-18 apprenticeships and who do not hold a contract with the EFA.
The funding calculation specification identifies:
For FM 25 (EFA) 16-19 traineeships
And SOF 107 the funding line as appropriate to the learner but traineeships not identified separately as considered to be part of a study programme.
And SOF 105 funding line ‘16-18 Traineeships (Non-EFA)’ identified from learning delivery FAM’s code = “323”.
All are funded as per a study programme with LS factor included.
For FM 35 (SFA) 19-24 traineeships
SOF 105 the funding line as appropriate to the learner (normally ‘Classroom Learning’) but traineeships identified by learning delivery FAM’s code = “323” and LrnDelDV_Traineeship in reporting.
This is funded at the aim level with 20% achievement element and LSF if required.
I expect it will all change next year when they introduce programme aims for traineeships.January 29, 2014 at 8:13 am #4922
Thank you once again for your succinct clarity in this.
So do you now believe that there is ever Aim-level funding for a Traineeship (as you suggested in your post of January 28, 2014 at 11:06 am)? And if so under what circumstances, please?
I am still labouring under the impression that Traineeship funding is provided for the Traineeship as a whole and covers all Aims within the Traineeship, with no separate funding.
Also that the maximum duration of any Traineeship is 6 months (as I understand it) and so if something like Maths or English has a Planned End Date (A28) that makes that individual Aim be planned over longer than 6 months, then that is ignored (or at least should be ignored) when it comes to the funding payments.
And just to split a small hair, is the lower age band for Traineeships 16-18 or 16-19? The confusion that I see with the latter is for a Learner who is 19 – would they belong in 16-19 or 19-24? And is it 19-24 or 19-23 now? Sorry to be pedantic, but the devil is in the detail.
CasparJanuary 30, 2014 at 11:47 am #4960
The correct acronym’s for ’Traineeships for 19 up to 24 year olds’ is 19-23 and for ’Traineeships for 16 up to 19 year olds’ is 16-18.
The delivery routes determine if funded is per programme or funded for each aim as per the following:
Existing Adult Skills Budget providers that hold a contract with the Agency are funded on the same basis per component model as the standard ASB contract using matrix funding for each aim.
Existing providers for 16-19 year olds that hold a contract with the Education Funding Agency are able to deliver traineeships within the new Study Programme Delivery Routes arrangements with funding per student.
Existing 16-18 Apprenticeship providers that don’t have an EFA contract are able to deliver through their contract with the Agency but funded on the same basis as those through the EFA.
I do not know if the following two FIS PFR issues are repeated in the OLDC and HUB reports but this may be part of the issue.
For learners with a funding line type value of 16-18 Traineeships, the funding is being incorrectly apportioned across the periods. The totals for the whole learner are also incorrect.
The funding amount for Classroom learners with funding model 25 and Source of Funding 105 is repeating in every month within the “Indicative 2013-14 PFR Occupancy Report”.January 30, 2014 at 5:48 pm #4967
Martin and Caspar, hope you’re still watching this thread. What do we expect to happen with an SFA funded 16-18 learner who starts on a traineeship (FM25 calculation) and then progresses to an apprenticeship (FM35 calculation)? As far as I can see (from a small sample) the FIS is giving zero funding for the traineeship, and normal funding for the FM35 bit. Is this your experience, and does it seem right to you? (The provider is, of course, solely SFA funded.)February 2, 2014 at 9:14 am #4997SFA STAFF
Luke. For Traineeships funded using the EFA funding model that in the next funding year they are 19 (and are continuing on a traineeship) we would treat them in exactly the same way that we treat EFA funded learners. That is we use the same funding model but the source of funding changes. This can only apply to a learner on a Traineeship where they started after March as they have a maximum time limit of 6 months.February 3, 2014 at 9:15 am #5003
Nick, I’m quite possibly suffering under some deep misunderstanding, so please bear with me. My belief is that, where a provider has never been in receipt of EFA funding (typically an independent), 16-18 traineeships will be funded by the SFA on Funding Model 25. The source of funding in these cases remains the SFA throughout, even when the learner — still 16-18 — moves to an apprenticeship. This is the case that’s concerning me: please let me know if I’ve misunderstood.February 3, 2014 at 9:52 am #5004
While I admit that I may not fully understand I offer the following:
I think that this all relies on the work placement learning aim being recorded as achieved when the learner progresses to an apprenticeship. I have not experienced learners with the same circumstances but I would suggest that this may be down to where this was not included in the OPA due to the late introduction of traineeships for providers who do not have an EFA contract.
In the event that the calculations are incorrect I would expect that the solution could be to claim the missing payment for the traineeship via the EAS unless this issue is resolved in the funding calculations.
I do not understand the last posting from Nick Chomyk or the relevance to this issue or am I missing something?February 3, 2014 at 9:54 am #5005
Hi Luke et al,
A Provider that I work with is delivering 16-18 Traineeships and they only have an SFA Contract. When the learners conclude the Traineeship the Completion is entered as per the IA document called “Guide to Recording Traineeships in the ILR” available at http://www.theia.org.uk/ilr/ilrdocuments/201314-guidance.htm . If the Learner then progresses to a Level 2 Apprenticeship then that is claimed and payment for that begins as normal.
Now the actual payments received are viewed on the OLDC PFR Summary and this shows payment in exactly equal installments over the duration of the Traineeship. At R06 a new OLDC report called an Occupancy Report has been introduced and this shows something different (it shows 20% Retention/Completion funding and hence different OPP values, whereas the OLDC PFR Summary is the same as before).
Now the Provider I work with has seen payments received this way pretty much as expected. However in Luke’s original question he asked about FIS reporting and I cannot comment on this as I have been unable to use FIS ever since the Live version was released. I would recommend submitting to OLDC and reviewing the reports generated there.
Thank you to Nick Chomyk for his recent FeConnect postings as it is very helpful to have some authorative comment, although, like Martin, I do not understand what he has said here with respect to the question Luke has asked as it does not appear relevant.
CasparFebruary 3, 2014 at 10:51 am #5009
Sorry if this is a really stupid question, but…..
Could one of you confirm my understanding of this:
FM 25 and SOF 107 are for 16-19 traineeships (EFA contract) – when you say “EFA Contract” do you mean a traineeship contract with EFA, or do you mean a ‘normal’ 16-19 EFA contract?
FM 25 and SOF 105 are for 16-19 traineeships for providers who deliver 16-18 apprenticeships and who do not hold a contract with the EFA. – opposite of the above really – if we don’t have a specific 16-19 traineeship contract with EFA (but we do have 16-19 contract with them as well as have a 16-18 Apprenticeship contract AND a SFA contract).
My thoughts would be we should be putting any 16-19 traineeships through EFA (FM = 25 and SOF = 107) because we have a contract with EFA (just not a contract to deliver 16-19 traineeships). However, if you mean a EFA contract to deliver 16-19 Traineeships, then I guess we should be using the FM = 25 and SOF = 105 route.
We also have a SFA contract to deliver ASB, 16-18 Apprenticeships AND 19+ Traineeships.
I’m just trying to work out the ambiguity of the wording ‘EFA contract”.
Could someone please clarify this for me – I would be ever so grateful.
SarahSeptember 1, 2014 at 12:59 pm #8195
Sarah, I think not quite. If you have any contract with the EFA, then your 16-18 Traineeships are normal FM25/SOF107, the same as your other EFA funded learners. The FM25/SOF105 combination is needed only for providers who only have a contract with the SFA, and none with the EFA. Your 19+ learners and 16-18 apprentices are, of course, FM35/105.September 1, 2014 at 1:19 pm #8197
I think you have over complicated the EFA contract bit as there are no separate contracts for Traineeships. You either have an EFA contact or you do not.September 1, 2014 at 1:20 pm #8198
Thanks everyone 🙂September 1, 2014 at 3:49 pm #8203
If anyone is still awake please say hi! Finally received Error reports back from OLDC and the Hub, which is good but i have 2 errors that have appeared on Traineeships when i have closed down their learning.
The Errors are
EmpOutcome_04 Employment outcome (1) funding is being claimed and there is no Benefit status indicator on the
Employment status record that applies to this learning aim
PlanLearnHours_02 The Planned learning hours are zero
These didn,t appear when they were live and in learning so am stumped! I thought we didn’t need planned hours on Traineeships in 13/14 as the Aims had a listed value?
The Employment Outcome the learners started their programme with 11 Unemp Looking for work. They secured a work Placement whuch has turned into an Apprenticeship. So i add a 10 Emp is that the right way to do it?
StephenOctober 24, 2014 at 2:04 am #10063
I would check the provider manual as you will have already claimed the full achievement value as the learner has progressed to an apprenticeship. You can only claim for an employment outcome in certain circumstances which this learner does not seem to meet you need to understand why you are claiming this.
These are only a warning
PlanLearnHours_02 – the Planned learning hours should be entered.
EmpOutcome_04 – there should be a BSI if you claim an employment outcome.October 24, 2014 at 8:14 am #10066
So how would it recognise the Achievement into Apprenticeship? How do we identify/record they had a work placement as this is a key componant.October 24, 2014 at 8:21 am #10067
The work placement learning aim (All traineeships must have a work experience learning aim recorded on the ILR) can only be recorded as achieved if the learner progresses to a job or an apprenticeship (or further full time learning for 16-19 year olds) and has retained this outcome for a period of 6 weeks.October 24, 2014 at 8:36 am #10068
Ok right, thinking aloud time
If they start with code 11 Unemployed looking for work and they stay like that but i achieve the Work Placement aim as usual that would be ok? I don’t need to identify an employer (in 13/14 anyway)?
Sorry to be a pain. Only error i have and it is on multiple learnersOctober 24, 2014 at 8:41 am #10071
The requirement in 13/14 was:
Recording the Work placement employer
21. For all traineeships, the work placement employer must be recorded by adding additional employment status records for each of the work placements undertaken and recording the appropriate employer reference number in the Employer identifier field on each record.October 24, 2014 at 8:53 am #10074
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.