We use cookies to collect
information about how you use ‘Get help with DfE services’. We use this information to make the
website work as well as possible and improve government services.
Whilst reviewing the government funding rules there appears to be inconsistencies between the unemployment section and the evidence pack. The unemployment section states:
The eligibility criteria for ASF funding includes having earnings below the threshold of £26,800. This includes individuals with no earnings, such as those who are unemployed or economically inactive.
In order to claim full funding for learners who are unemployed and not in receipt of benefits, you must indicate that they earn below the earnings threshold by using LDM code 391 and FFI code 1.
However, the Evidence pack section states;
Where the learner is unemployed, this must include a record of what you have agreed with them, including the relevance of the learning to their employment prospects and the labour market needs.
Firstly, I was under the impression that an economically inactive individual is someone who is not part of the workforce and is not actively seeking employment. If that is the case, how would a college be expected to evidence that a course is relevant to that individual's employment prospects?
Secondly, if colleges are required to demonstrate the relevance of a course to a student's employment prospects, how much flexibility is there in interpreting this requirement? For example, could a manager in any sector enrol on a counselling course to develop skills that would enhance their effectiveness in a management role?
Finally, if a student states at enrolment that they are currently not employed and are not actively looking for work (for instance long term medical reasons), but intends to undertake the course to improve their future employment prospects, would this be considered an error or would it still meet the requirement?
Has anyone got any experience with this that may be able to advise?
Emma Simpson
Unemployed/Economically Inactive - Evidence Pack 26/27
Created
Whilst reviewing the government funding rules there appears to be inconsistencies between the unemployment section and the evidence pack. The unemployment section states:
The eligibility criteria for ASF funding includes having earnings below the threshold of £26,800. This includes individuals with no earnings, such as those who are unemployed or economically inactive.
In order to claim full funding for learners who are unemployed and not in receipt of benefits, you must indicate that they earn below the earnings threshold by using LDM code 391 and FFI code 1.
However, the Evidence pack section states;
Where the learner is unemployed, this must include a record of what you have agreed with them, including the relevance of the learning to their employment prospects and the labour market needs.
Firstly, I was under the impression that an economically inactive individual is someone who is not part of the workforce and is not actively seeking employment. If that is the case, how would a college be expected to evidence that a course is relevant to that individual's employment prospects?
Secondly, if colleges are required to demonstrate the relevance of a course to a student's employment prospects, how much flexibility is there in interpreting this requirement? For example, could a manager in any sector enrol on a counselling course to develop skills that would enhance their effectiveness in a management role?
Finally, if a student states at enrolment that they are currently not employed and are not actively looking for work (for instance long term medical reasons), but intends to undertake the course to improve their future employment prospects, would this be considered an error or would it still meet the requirement?
Has anyone got any experience with this that may be able to advise?