Funding dropped this month and nobody can explain why
This has been flagged because it is worth checking. It may be entirely correct. Investigate before assuming anything is wrong.
In plain English
The funding report for this period shows less than expected, or less than last period. Because every return restates the whole year, a change made this month can move earnings reported in earlier months, so the drop may have nothing to do with this month's delivery.
Why it matters
An unexplained movement in earnings undermines the forecast and the budget. More importantly, the explanation is usually a data problem that is still fixable, and finding it in month is far cheaper than finding it at year end.
Funding
The movement itself is the funding impact. Whether it is a problem depends entirely on whether it reflects a data error or a genuine change in delivery.
Performance
Where the cause is late withdrawal recording, the same records also affect retention and achievement.
Audit
An unexplained movement between returns is a standard audit question. Having the explanation recorded at the time is the difference between a short conversation and a long one.
Most likely causes
Ranked, because in practice a few causes explain most cases.
- commonWithdrawals recorded this month removed earnings from earlier periodsThe most common explanation. A batch of leavers entered this month restates every period since they actually left, so one month absorbs several months of correction.
- commonRecords were rejected at validation and dropped out of the funded populationCompare the number of funded records with last period before looking at individual learners. A validation change can remove a group at once.
- occasionalA monitoring or eligibility code was changed or removedCodes that carry eligibility or uplift change the calculation without changing the number of learners, so the learner count looks unchanged while the money moves.
- occasionalPlanned hours or aims were amended, moving learners between bandsA band change affects the rate applied for the whole year, not just from the date of the change.
- occasionalA genuine delivery changeSometimes the answer really is that less was delivered. Rule out the data causes first, because they are more common and more fixable.
Check these first
- Compare this period's funding report with last period's at the total level before looking at learners.
- Compare the count of funded records between the two periods.
- Check the validation error report for a change in the number or type of rejections.
- Check what data changed in the source system since the last return, and who changed it.
Completion statusActual end dateFunding and monitoring codesPlanned hoursFunding model
How to investigate
- Work top down. Total, then funding model, then curriculum area, then learner. Going straight to learner level wastes hours.
- Compare the funded record count as well as the money: a drop with the same count is a rate or code problem, a drop with a lower count is a population problem.
- Check the validation position: records rejected this period are simply not funded.
- List the data changes made since the last return and match them against the movement.
- Once explained, write the explanation down. This question is asked every month and the answer is usually the same handful of causes.
In your system
These steps are system-neutral: they describe what has to be true in the data, which is the same whatever software your college runs. We do not publish supplier screen paths we have not verified, because menu locations differ by version and by local configuration, and a confidently wrong instruction is worse than none.
System-neutral
- Download the funding reports for this period and the previous one.
- Compare totals first, then by funding model, then by curriculum area, narrowing down before going to learner level.
- Identify the learners whose earnings changed and look at what changed on their records.
- Trace each change back to the source system entry that caused it.
Building your own map of where each of these lives in your system is the most useful induction document an MIS team can have. How to build one.
How to fix it
- Where the movement is caused by a data error, correct it in the source system and expect a further restatement.
- Where it is caused by a correct change, such as a genuine withdrawal, no correction is needed. Explain it to Finance instead.
- Update the forecast to reflect the explained position rather than the surprise.
Stop this happening again
Fixing the record clears this case. A control is what stops the next one, so each of these names what to do, who owns it and how often.
A monthly reconciliation of the funding report against the previous period, with the movement explained in writing before sign-off.
Recording withdrawals as they happen rather than in batches, so restatements are small and continuous rather than large and sudden.
A log of data changes made between returns, with the reason recorded at the time.
The rules behind this
Each ILR return is a complete restatement of the funding year to date, not an increment. Every return replaces the last, which is why an error introduced late can change earnings already reported.
In further education, funding is not paid simply because a college says it taught someone. It is earned by recording what was delivered in the Individualised Learner Record, and that record is what the funding calculation, the performance measures and any audit all read from.
Sources
These are the official documents this page rests on. Where a figure, a deadline or an exact rule matters, the document is the authority and this page is the explanation.
Content reused from GOV.UK is Crown copyright, used under the Open Government Licence. FEFunding is not endorsed by the Department for Education.