Replies
No one has replied to this post.
But remember everyone, these are only *potential* errors! If you're happy that all of your learners appearing on these reports are correct, then don't try and change things so your reports are clear! If anything, I think it's a bit dangerous to threaten an audit based on these three, quite benign, reports...
The advice on this page reflects the Funding regulations guidance. The first two bullet points, relating to reports FRM43 and FRM56, we regard as “data errors that require remedy” and the third is addressed in paragraph 135 below.
The reason we’ve asked for data corrections is to ensure any provider selected for a risk-based audit based on high EEP levels is one with high EEP levels rather than simply one making data mistakes. We wish to ensure students’ study programmes are usually focussed on nationally accredited qualifications supported by EEP delivery rather than the other way round. “High needs” flagged students are excluded from our analysis.
- 135… For non-qualification activity to be eligible for funding, institutions must be able to evidence that they have incurred a cost in delivering the activity that is proportionate to the amount of funding being recorded for this activity … Additional funding audit attention will be made where the amount of EEP activity being funded makes up more than half the study programme funding. Where EEP activity is above this figure, auditors will need to see evidence of costs that can be directly related to the delivery of education …
Given the low volume of risk-based audits (maybe 35 this year?) are we really to believe that this would be the *only* thing that would push a provider into this group? Furthermore, with the moving of Traineeship and ESF learners into "normal" study progs, we know the number of learners on these reports is only going to increase in 23/24. The vast majority of learners at the vast majority of providers in this circumstance are people sat in classrooms with the same cost base as those doing accredited qualifications. It's right for people to check them, of course, but by invoking the threat of audit, some providers will try and "clear" these reports (or worse, fiddle what it looks like they're delivering so learners fall below 50%) even where what they're delivering is a perfectly valid Study Programme.
Post-16 Monitoring
Review hours for 16 to 19 qualifications and non-qualifications
Created
We have identified areas in advance of the R14 ILR return that need reviewing where we can see numerous providers with potential errors in their data. To help you reduce your data errors at R14 and the chance of being selected for audit, please use the post-16 monitoring reports dashboard to review these reports:
· FRM43 - 16 to 19 study programme students on qualifications with no planned learning hours (PLH)
· FRM56 - 16 to 19 study programmes with PLH but no regulated qualifications
· FRM69 - Proportion of planned employment, enrichment and pastoral (EEP) hours is greater than or equal to 50% of total planned hours and student is not identified as requiring additional learning support.
Ensure your PLH and EEP accurately reflect the amount of qualifications and non-qualifications activity being delivered. The PLH field must reflect the total planned timetabled hours spent on DfE approved qualifications only. A value of zero PLH is returned if the student is only participating in EEP.