2011/12 ILR – Discussion Area

‹‹ Forum

• Change request 32 – Move to single ILR return (10 posts)

• Selvy said 1 year, 9 months ago:

  Hello colleagues

  It's time for another update from the survey monkey consultation.

  Change request 32 proposes consolidating all learner and provision types into a single ILR return. On the consultation (http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/201112-change-request-32) so far, we have received 27 responses. 74 per cent of the respondents support this change request and see the benefits as being:

  • ‘One unified data set to be returned’
  • ‘Simpler, less duplication, would start the process to reduce the data burden if approached properly’
  • ‘Much MUCH easier. Less work. More use internally for monitoring and planning’
  • ‘Less bureaucracy, and more time spent dealing with the real issues’.

  However even among the supporters there is a concern about the frequency of returns, particularly among the college representatives who responded. There was general concern expressed about the possibility of moving to monthly returns as it would increase the workload for non-Employer Responsive providers. Among the comments were also concerns regarding the accuracy of early year Learner Responsive data if returns are expected monthly.

  One respondent also raised concern about the significant development time and cost on the part of software providers and the Data Service in the early stages, particularly in dealing with the different complexities that software such as the LIS will have to handle.

  What are your views? Do you agree or disagree with the respondents so far? Please take part in the consultation (http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/201112-change-request-32) and let us know. The deadline for the consultation is 3 September so don’t wait too long. You can also give us your views on this discussion area or write to us on cst@theia.org.uk.

  Selvy

• moeszyslak said 1 year, 8 months ago:

  I'd like to see how thise would work with a college who have a small-ish ESF project, for example. Under this proposed changed, they've submitted their equivalent of the F05. Six months later, some issues are picked up on their ESF learners, and 3 records need to be changed. I'd bet a million de-valued Euros that the college doesn't want to change their data!

• sykdavet – made redundant on 19th November 2010 said 1 year, 8 months ago:

  We are not a college, and we like monthly data returns!
  We get paid based on those monthly returns!

  I am one of the 27 who responded.
  I don't mind a single ILR return but it has to let us do it monthly.

• Jon.Eaton said 1 year, 8 months ago:

  Hi

  As a big FE college with a large Learner Responsive contract, moving this to monthly collections would be absolutely ridiculous. It would be a MASSIVE increase in work load to be able to do this monthly, and the first 4 returns (if kept monthly starting from 1st August) would be of very little use apart from general learner numbers.

  If it does go to a single ILR then in its current format I cannot see it working with monthly returns, especially if one validation error makes the entire submission invalid. Not only would the burden to colleges be unmanageable, but the data that is submitted would be next to useless for funding purposes for the first few months.

  I was one of those that did respond, and positively for a single ILR, but it cannot be kept in its current format (one error = rejected return) and frequency (once a month if following ER profile)

  Jon

• Jon.Eaton said 1 year, 8 months ago:

  Just had another thought.
  As the Employer Responsive payments have now moved from actuals to profiled payment system under the new single budget a monthly ER return isn't actually needed anymore at the moment as it is. Surely a quarterly return would suffice now as the ER payments happen monthly on profile.

  Jon

• sykdavet – made redundant on 19th November 2010 said 1 year, 8 months ago:

  We are mainly ESF using the SR monthly returns.
  The first thing to note is that an error doesn't reject the return, it goes into the exception list and you don't get paid for it until you fix it.
  The second thing is that profile payments are vile, it is impossible to work out exactly where you are with the payments.

• moeszyslak said 1 year, 8 months ago:

  sykdavet – to clarify, there's two levels of validation for ESF data. The first is the ILR/SR file validation (date fields have dates in them, coded fields have valid codes, mandatory fields aren't blank, etc, etc). Any records failing that stage show on the ILR Error Report on the OLDC site where you load the batchfile. The second level is against your ESF contract eligibility (age, employment status, prior quals, etc), and learners falling outside those ranges get posted on the Exception Report.

  Learners who fail the first stage go no further. IE, they don't show up on the ESF Exception Report.

• sykdavet – made redundant on 19th November 2010 said 1 year, 8 months ago:

  Moe,
  The LIS doesn't let the file validation errors through so when I load the batchfile all I see is warnings.

  It seems the main problem with a single ILR return is differences in the way we are paid and what happens if oyu have errors.
  So, for the colleges, stop rejecting the uploaded file if it has even one error and use an exception list instead.
  And a question for Moe, do you really need to see the ESF data monthly?

  I make data uploads once a week usually, keeps errror checking easy to manage.
  With the change to SR01 I have been doing uploads almost daily and had S12 re-opened… That lack of Period 13 on ESF is tedious.

• moeszyslak said 1 year, 8 months ago:

  Monthly if you want a monthly cash-flow!

  I Sympathize with the S13 – I've logged the issue in the past, but it fell on deaf ears. Once the P12 has been re-set, don't complete it when you've sent your data, and it will stay open for ever.

• moeszyslak said 1 year, 5 months ago:

  A follow-up question: How will a single return work for a small third-sector provider delivering only ESF? IE will they have to conform to using the full ILR, or will the short record still exist? I assume there will be a pre-input screen, and when the funding stream of ESF is entered, it hides away all the un-used fields for ER.

  Thanks.