Has anyone worked out how to match the period end summary report with the learner by learner reports yet?
once again i am getting no matches between what is being presented in the period end report and the figures on the period end Apps Monthly payment report.
Looking at the October Levy R03 column and adding up the payment amounts i am getting 2% more funding than is stated in the period end summary report for levy delivery (not including employer incentive or functional skills).
I thought the period end summary might include the R14 corrections, but if i add them in, then the difference jumps to 8% difference between the two sources.
did anyone get a response from the servicedesk on why the R02 reports didn’t match? has anyone managed to reconcile this month or any closer to knowing what is actually being paid?
I’ve double checked the known issues log and i can find nothing that affects my dataset at all.
Thanks in advance.
Ben F.November 9, 2018 at 8:15 pm #305886
finally got the numbers to reconcile.
Period End Summary Report:
R03 YTD values for Levy – R02 YTD Values for Levy (excluding English, Maths and Employer Incentives)
Filter Period End Apps Monthly Payment Report to Levy Learners Only and add up both the Levy in R03 and the Co-Investment in R03
This matched for me.
Ben F.November 10, 2018 at 12:20 am #305909
the approach I have adopted is to track the YTD payments up to the period in question via the indicative earnings report and then cross-check this against the YTD in the Monthly payments report and it is working. This also enables me to spot where the negative figures might appear in the monthly payments report which is distinctly different as we know to how the FM35 funding reports work. An example to exand on this is where I am tracking framework pathway changes that have occurred particularly if the transfer date missed the live month so in effect back-dated. The payment(s) already received for the original then appear as negative figures and the new pathway catches up with more than one payment in the month the system first sees it. It is a pain but is balancing okay.
ChrisNovember 10, 2018 at 11:25 am #305988
Thanks for that Chris,
I’ve been doing something along those lines for the past 3 years with the reports, building up 2 YTD pictures, one for previous month and one for current month and doing a comparison between them in SQL. just curious as to what you use as your identifier to compare the 2 periods together? since the software supplier aim identifier is no longer a unique identifier within the period end payment reports, i’m really struggling to find a reliable method.
The root issue with my method in 1819, is that i hadn’t spotted that the period end summary report had reverted back to reporting based on earned month rather than paid month.
So if i go back to the 1718 R12 versions of the reports and compare the period end summary figure in the July column, it matches the figure in the relevant July column(s) in the apps monthly payment report for July only. In 1819, i have to look at the YTD figure from R02 and the YTD figure for R03 in the period end summary report and compare that to the current month’s column(s) in the R03 period end apps monthly payment report to get a match.
Hopefully that helps some people out there who are having the same issues.
Ben F.November 12, 2018 at 9:54 am #306446
all I am doing is to check the income as shown in the most recent period monthly payments report at individual apprentice and programme aim and functional skill level and then looking at the total cumulative YTD and comparing it with the apps indicative cumulative funding YTD total. I was doing this last year and how I spotted along with others the significant functional skills overpayments at period 7 I think it was.
By doing it this way even if the monthly payment report shows either a negative or a positive catch up payment but not in the same month as the indicative earnings report due to a late data entry it is balancing correctly. The example I gave of the apprenticeship framework pathway transfer has two programme aims now in the monthly payments report however you can see the payment received for the original and then taken back due to the transfer being processed a month late and the new programme aim payment catching up two months etc.
I had another provider I work with change functional skills awarding organisation mid-stream last year which was fun! It had the ESFA fooled for a while too. In the old system the funding in the PFR would have just continued as if nothing had happened given the funding rate is clearly exactly the same. Not now, the monthly payments report was showing data for the old and new qual aim with negatives and catch up payments all over the place. It took until period 13 for the ESFA to correct this and I am pleased to say at P14 it all now looks correct.
Did you have fun with FM36 period 13 payments being made as part of the current year period 2 payment? I got that to balance too after a bit of head-scratching using the same method as described above i.e. Period 13 YTD indicative funding to P13 monthly payments report and it even matched the remittance statement despite the levy payment not being separated out P13 and P2 which I think is how it should have been set out.
ChrisNovember 12, 2018 at 10:55 am #306465
Yes, i wouldn’t say it was fun at R02/R13, i will have to go back and re-apply my updated methodology and see if things now reconcile back, although i couldn’t get it to balance to the remittance at the time, the learner by learner reports might at least balance back to period end summary report now.
Ben F.November 12, 2018 at 11:01 am #306467
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.