2025–26 historical guidance. This is what DfE published for 2025–26 and it may have been superseded. Read the current FRM69
Proportion of planned employment, enrichment and pastoral EEP) hours is 50% or more of total planned hours
A funding monitoring report identifies records and patterns that DfE wants providers to investigate and be able to explain. Appearing on one does not by itself mean a record is wrong. Many flagged records are correct and simply need their evidence produced; others turn out to need a correction.
Where this comes from
Every word below is DfE’s own, read from the published guidance on 19 September 2026. Nothing in this section was written by FEFunding.
Summary
In the majority of cases young people should be enrolled either in learning which leads to:
a) an external certificate offered by a regulated awarding organisation and approved on the DfE list of qualifications approved for funding 14 to 19, or
b) a substantial work placement to prepare them for progression to an apprenticeship or other employment, or
c) a T Level
We have excluded students who have self-declared any learner learning difficulties, disabilities (LLDD) or health problems or have been reported as requiring additional support.
Funding streams reviewed
- 16 to 19 study programmes
What you need to do
You must ensure that you have correctly recorded planned learning hours for any qualifications being delivered and recorded non-qualification delivery as EEP. For non-qualification activity to be eligible for funding, you must be able to evidence that you have incurred a cost in delivering the activity that is proportionate to the amount of funding being recorded for this activity, and be able to demonstrate that it improves either progression to further levels of study or entry into employment.
What we will do
We may ask to review evidence of cost and need in-year to ensure that data is accurate, and value can be demonstrated. Your risk of audit will increase where EEP exceeds 50% of study programme hours.
Changes from previous funding year
None
What this means in practice
The Academy does not yet have an explanation of FRM69 that it stands behind, so it is showing you DfE’s wording and nothing of its own. We would rather say that than publish a paragraph nobody has checked against the guidance above. Ask about your specific situation or tell us this is missing.
Funding streams this report reviews
FRM69 in other funding years
Working through it in your own system
- Read the official wording for this report and note exactly which records it identifies.
- Find those records in your own data using the fields the report names.
- For each one, decide whether the record is correct and simply needs its evidence produced, or genuinely wrong.
- Trace a wrong record back to the entry in your source system that produced it, rather than to the file it appeared in.
- Correct it at that entry, regenerate and resubmit.
- Keep the evidence and the reason for the change together, so the record is explainable at audit.
The Academy has no verified supplier guidance for this report yet. Menu locations differ between product versions and between colleges on the same version, so we do not publish navigation we have not confirmed. The steps above are what has to be true in the data, which is the same in every system.
If the record does turn out to be wrong. Correct the record in the system where the data is entered, then regenerate the ILR file and resubmit it. Editing the generated file directly removes the symptom and leaves the cause in place, so the same record returns at the next submission with nobody expecting it. Keep a note of what was changed and why: that note is what makes the correction explainable later.