Forum Replies Created
Just show Ofsted or leadership this thread, they should get that it’s an appropriate approach and that there is a sensitivity issue.
They be co funded initially.
But if they then successfully get the UC and it’s backdated to 10/04/19, then you could fully fund on that basis (assuming the course starts after that date).
In reality, if learner has already left, the likelihood of them providing the evidence is slim though.
There have been plenty of posts recently around learners self declaring and technically that’s fine, (though different auditors appear to hold differing views in my opinion, so you have to hold your ground!). But in a case like this, where you know the learner has self declared they haven’t got it (yet), then I’d always advise on following up on the actual evidence to support the claim for full funding.
Any spend for additional learning support would come from your community learning allocation (same with discretionary learning support), you cannot claim via the £150 per month by flagging on the ILR.
ALS and DLSF was always for formula funded delivery – the funding guidance docs aren’t really explicitly clear that it’s limited to formula funding, but it is. The creation of the AEB (ie combining ASB and Community Learning) hasn’t changed what you can do with the funding. Have seen a few threads where folk are getting caught out on this (HOLEX heads of service group).
Bottom line is that if the participation is FM10, then any spend on ALS or DSLF comes from the community learning allocation and is at the providers discretion.
I don’t think it’s specifically stated in the funding guidance any longer, but from previous years knowledge DLSF and ALS were only ever part of formula funding and I’ve not seen anything to suggest that the intention of delivery ever changed.
If you look at the ILR spec (page 75), LSR is not collected for Funding Model 10. So my thinking is that if it were allowed and they are not collecting data for it, then it wrecks all the data they collect for the other streams (as it would represent an unknown quantity).
Best thing is probably to seek a definitive answer from the funding systems team.February 1, 2019 at 10:59 am in reply to: Discretionary Learner Support for Community Learning #340904
You can’t claim for DLSF for community learning funded learners (FM10).
But you do have flexibility on how you spend your community learning funding and develop your fee policy. If you decide to use a portion of your CL funding to support DLSF ‘style’ need, to remove barriers to participation, then that’s always been an option. It’s always a trade off though, whatever you could on it means less funding available for delivery.January 30, 2019 at 2:59 pm in reply to: Discretionary Learner Support for Community Learning #340291
They will do some reverse testing though – ie looking for learners that have been taken out of funding, when they should really be in funding.
We we were audited a couple of years ago, they started with the retention by aim report and picked a few aims that had 100% retention, then reverse tested this back to the registers to assure themselves there wasn’t any monkey business going on. (which I can happily confirm there wasn’t).
So they can’t take money off you for something you haven’t claimed, but you could get a dressing down if something else is lurking.
As it stands if they are eligible at the start then it’s for the duration of the aim / programme etc, irrespective of whether their eligibility changes.
But who knows whether that rule will change at some point? so in that sense currently eligible / fundable learners may become non-fundable for future aims.
(it’s hard to imagine there would be any sound basis to apply a rule change retrospectively, once that learning agreement is signed it would be a ‘contract’ under the published rules at that point in time)
It’s the date from when UC applies from that is the key date (not the date of the first payment, as that may be much later!).
But if the UC applies from date is still after the aim start date, then yes, co funded.
Watch out on the minimum standards worksheets on the QAR.
Unhelpfully, the ‘provider rate’ figure displayed is actually the pass rate, not the overall achievement rate, which is what Min standards is based on (and the pivot table on Min Standards sheets doesn’t have the ‘measure’ option).
If your QAR ends up in the hands of non data people, then perhaps worth pointing out to avoid confusion.
Just to muddy the waters a little, how about this theory off the top of my head.
Imagine you have £1m allocation for Community Learning.
That core bit of funding cannot be used to match to ESF (even though as I understand it the ESFA don’t use funding model 10 for ESF matching purposes).
But… Each provider has a locally determined fee policy (pound plus), to leverage in further income (or reduce costs) and plough back into delivery.
So lets say you generate £200k of fee income off that £1m – Could you use that for ESF match funding. It’s not part of the AEB so arguably not a contractual sticking point?
If you have downloaded the zip file from the Hub, then column E/F should be your learner reference / ULN.
Yes – Needs to have the word discretionary, exceptional or indefinite. Otherwise classed as overseas.
If it’s just leave to remain/enter then it’s most commonly because they are here on a work permit and are not fundable (unless for another reason).
Above obviously dependent on their ability to pay. We don’t just default to it!
I record them as FFI 2 (agree with Steve above on state benefit definition) – But use discretionary learning support funding (hardship) to cover the course fee. Depends on your volume and what you consider the ESFA mean by the word ‘exceptional’!
247. In exceptional circumstances, you can use hardship funds with course fees for
learners who need financial support to start or stay in learning.
248. If an asylum seeker is eligible for provision, you may provide learner support in
the form of course-related books, equipment or a travel pass. You must not give
a learner who is an asylum seeker support in the form of cash.
It’s good there are still a few old lags knocking around the sector to pick these up!
Correct – claims for learnER support are done via the mid and end year claims.
Don’t forget to flag the the in the ILR though learnerFAM type LSR (learner support reason) – probably code 59.
Same – On Annual leave next week. Can’t really take leave during term times.
They would be both controllers and processors.
Hopefully there is someone from the Agency looking in on this – Bottom line is that there are lots of posts about this discretionary rule and fully funding a low wage.
As there are so many posts and different interpretations, then it seems to me that reviewing the wording in the guidance would make sense.
Agree with Martin.
It’s the way they’ve written the rule using the word ‘claim’ that probably leads to confusion. Providers can see it from the learners point of view of the language used (eg benefit claimants), whereas funders describe it from their own perspective (eg learners ‘claiming’ they meet the criteria).
Still? Never have!
To claim achievement on a qualification, they have to have passed that qualification.
If you mean, can non-regulated aims be used (and achievement claimed via RaRPA) in cases where the learner has a significant learning difficulty and the learning aim was set during the funding qualifying period, then yes.
As long as you have evidence to justify the decision it looks as though it may be possible to exempt:
Here’s the response from the service desk (INC0357227), in essence saying change the aim to get round the rule violation. Looks as though their prime concern is the QAR (not data matching or PLR):
“In this case, the learning aim (non funded code 99) should not appear in your QAR results (and because you cannot use any ‘funded’ aims), so you will be ok to use the one you have. Please refer to this incident number if this becomes an issue at a later date.
Thank you for contacting the ESFA Service Centre”
Waiting on service desks official response and will post.
As we’re getting close to R13, I’m leaning towards leaving them in but changing the aim code to a similar aim code that is compatible with funding model 99, even though I know it will be inaccurate.
If I exclude them (6), then they won’t ever get included in the usual quality processes and data scrutiny. It’s not feasible to re-code loads of internal reports to try and work around it.