Prioritising Learner Support Funds

1
Prioritising Learner Support Funds
2
Introduction

• This model has been developed in the context of
• A General FE College
• A LSF budget of 330-230K
• A team of three FTE administering LSF alongside
  other Student Support duties
• Having a history of high student demand for funds
  and variable end of year LSF spend.

3
How we got to where we are 2002-2003

• Labour intensive All students
  interviewed Tailored assessments and
  individualised allocations Student collected
  cheques from Student Support Overworked
  dedicated staff
• Poor Service Level which led to high numbers of
  complaints
• Non-transparent working practises (staff and
  students).
• Internalised financial reporting systems in
  place.
• Large number of appeals against allocation and
  payment decisions

4
How we got to where we are 2003-2004

• Removed individual assessment by introducing
  banding of awards which allowed for quicker and
  more transparent allocations.
• Removed interviewing students by introducing new
  application form which allowed students to
  self-access financial support.
• Improved our Service standard and how this was
  communicated to students
• Redesigned financial assistance guidelines to
  improve the transparency of how we make awards
• Cheques sent direct to students by Finance
• Reduction in student complaints and appeals
• Lack of checks and balances

5
Why we made further changes and introduced
priority groups.

• Recognised the need for
• Fail-safe checks and balances
• Improve the transparency for Students
• Improve the transparency for Staff
• Administering funding within a smaller team
• Feel confident and comfortable with the way in
  which funding is administered
• a) operating an objective transparent system
• b) financial management.

6
How we got to where we are 2004-2005

• Restructured team to provide more support to LSF
  allocations.
• Funds prioritised to students in most need
  based onLSC guidance notes on Learner Support
  FundsDfES Learner Support Funds good practise
  guideIAG Strategic Board recommendations
• New guidelines and application form in place.
  Designed for ease of use by students and
  administrators.
• New database created to ensure checks and
  balances in place
• New financial reporting systems in place

7
Defining Priority Groups

• College Executive Summary statement City
  College targets its limited Learner Support Fund
  budget to those students in most need.
• These target groups are based on LSC guidance
  notes on Learner Support Funds, the DfES Learner
  Support Funds good practise guides and IAG
  Strategic Board recommendations.

8
Defining Priority Groups

• LSC guidance notes on Learner Support Funds and
  the DfES Learner Support Funds good practise
  guides identify the priority groups as
• Students who are disadvantaged, disabled,
  medically ill or have learning
  difficulties.
• Those who have been in care, on probation or are
  young parents.
• Lone parents
• Those taking programmes where the primary
  learning goal is adult basic education or ESOL
• Unemployed people receiving JSA
• Those receiving tax credits (within stated level)
• Students on low income or from low income
  families
• Unwaged dependants of those listed above.

9
Defining Priority Groups A starting point

• In 2004-2005 we established Four Priority Groups.
• Priority Group 1
• If you have declared an additional support need.
• OR
• If you or your parents/guardian are in receipt of
  income related benefits or if your household
  income is less than 15,000 a year.
• AND
• If you are studying for your first Level 2 course
  or you are progressing from a Level 2 to Level 3
  course or you are studying on an Adult Basic
  Education or ESOL course.
• AND
• If you live in Brighton and Hove ward recognised
  as an area of social and economic deprivation.

10
Defining Priority Groups A starting point

• Priority Group 2 (ward not a factor)
• If you or your parents/guardian are in receipt of
  income related benefits or if your household
  income is less than 15,000 a year.
• AND
• If you are studying for your first Level 2
  course or you are progressing from a Level 2 to
  Level 3 course or you are studying on an Adult
  Basic Education or ESOL course.
• Priority Group 3 (level not a factor i.e.
  retraining, graduates, frequent flyers.
• If you or your parents/guardian are in receipt of
  income related benefits or if your household
  income is less than 15,000 a year.
• Priority Group 4
• If your household income is between 15,000 and
  30,000 a year.
• 15, 000 gross salary, taking into account
  siblings, single parent status, number of
  children and reliance on disability allowance.

11
Defining Priority Groups

• 2006-2007
• In 2006-2007 we have dropped the number of
  priority groups, removing the eligibility for
  those students who earn more than 15,000 p.a.
  (Priority Group 4)This decision was based on
  the volume of applications made by the four
  priority groups and the conversion rate of
  applications into awards over the past two years.
  

12
Defining Priority Groups

• 2007-2008
• For 2007-2008 we have dropped all priority groups
  removing the eligibility for those students who
  earn above the income threshold, those retraining
  and the ward eligibility. This decision was
  based on the volume of applications made by the
  priority groups and the conversion rate of
  applications into awards over the past three
  years and to bring LSF in line with ALG and EMA.

13
Defining Priority Groups

• 2006-2008.
• Refined our application form based on student
  feedback to ask more explicit questions to
  profile priority groups
• Includes new questions to identify
• care leavers
• lone parents
• carers
• ex-offenders

14
Recording the data

• Administrators set up student records.
• Link to MI system (EBS) so no duplication of data
  entry.

15
Recording the data

• Application details are tracked in terms of
  Application and Assessment date (allows for SLA
  review)
• Priority group added
• Course details linked to MI system (EBS)

16
Recording the data

• Payment schedule allows for allocation of funds.
• This support the queries which generate cheque
  requests.
• Also allow status on course etc to be managed.

17
Recording the data

• Award Notification linked to Payment Schedule.
  Printed and signed copies are sent to student and
  retained on student file.
• Also linked to reports.
• N.B. Separate screen and award notice for child
  care awards.

18
Recording the data

• Reports linked to Payment Schedule/Award
  Notifications.
• Reports on
• Awards
• Failed Attendance
• Withdrawals
• Spend by account
• Spend by type

19
Managing the data

• Report on each allocation assessment session to
  show
• Expenditure
• Proportion of LSF Budget awarded
• Proportion of maximum allocation awarded

20
Managing the data

• Report on claw back and recouped funding
• Shows payments
• That have not or will not be made due to poor
  attendance or withdrawing.
• That have been recouped due to withdrawing, being
  sponsored or failing to register for an exam.
• That have not yet been raised in calendar month
  due to lack of attendance report or child care
  claim form.

21
Managing the data

• Report to senior managers on headline figures
  which shows
• Spend to date
• Future commitments
• Rate of Claw back (recouped funds)
• Projected spend
• Projected budget end
• Variation in projected spend due to claw back
  rate.
• Spend based on 64/36 LSC split.

22
Where we are now

• Volume of Appeals (non-attendance)

The volume of appeals has fallen in direct
relation to the transparency we have given in our
guidelines, letters and advice to student about
the way awards are made. Students have a fuller
understanding of why we have made an award at a
certain level. The majority of non-attendance
appeals now relate to students appealing against
not repaying their awards following withdrawing
from their course. This is often because they do
not fully disclose the reason for withdrawing to
their tutor.
23
Where we are now

• Volume of Drop-In enquiries

As our systems have become more transparent,
giving the student more information about how we
handle their application, this has reduced the
need to contact student support. This means we
have seen significant falls in the number of
individual contacts we have with our students.
For example students dont need to check with us
when they will hear about the outcome of their
application since we publicise the assessment
dates. This has allowed for the LSF to be
managed within a smaller team with more robust
service level agreements. The team have also been
able to refocus their time to support the
widening Every Child Matters Agenda.
24
Where we are now

• Recognised model of good working practises.
• Award system aimed at pre-enrolment part of the
  student journey.
• New Financial Assistance Database in place.
• Transparent systems in place for students.
• Transparent systems in place for staff.
• Clear and robust reporting systems in place to
  track spending.
• BACS payments to students and child care
  providers.

25
Other Models

• Disc includes application forms, guidelines and
  allocation principles from
• Newcastle College
• Macclesfield College
• York College
• Rotherham College
• Leeds College of Building
• Bishop Auckland College
• Plus City College Guidelines and application
  forms from 2002-2008.
• Financial Assistance Database
• Learner Support Fund Report (City College)

26
Question and Answer Time