ISR 1999-2000 derived statistics for funding allocations and monitoring in FECs

To:	Heads of further education colleges directly funded by the HEFCE
Of interest to those responsible for:	Student data, Audit, Finance
Reference:	01/35
Publication date:	June 2001
Enquiries to:	Anthony Ryan tel 0117 931 7297 Rhianne Cox tel 0117 931 7014 e-mail isr_heifes_stats@hefce.ac.uk

Executive summary (read on-line)

Download

Report and Annexes
[ MS Word 438K | Zipped Word 79K | Adobe PDF 550K | Zipped PDF 536K ]

Executive summary

Purpose

1. This document describes how we will use the Further Education Funding Council's (FEFC) July 1999-2000 individualised student record (ISR) to:

monitor aggregate returns made to the HEFCE
inform funding for 2001-02
produce some regional analysis.

2. This document also outlines the procedures we will adopt where our monitoring process identifies significant differences between aggregate and individualised returns. We believe this exercise helps us, and institutions, to better understand the data supplied to the FEFC and ensures that higher quality more consistent data are delivered to both the FEFC and the HEFCE.

3. The data included in the reconstruction of the Higher Education in Further Education: Students survey 1999 (HEIFES99) from the July 1999-2000 ISR (ISR17) will form the basis of calculating premiums based on the following:

full-time mature undergraduate students
the neighbourhood types of students.

These premiums will be used in the funding allocations for 2001-02.

4. Annex A gives full details of the methods used in generating the comparisons, including details of where assumptions have been made due to poor fit between the data collected on HEIFES99 and that supplied to the FEFC. In addition, the SAS code used to generate the comparisons can be found on our web-site, www.hefce.ac.uk under 'Learning and Teaching', 'Data collection'.

Franchised data

5. In HEFCE 00/55 we published details of franchised students based on the July 1998-99 ISR (ISR14). We are providing information on the teaching institutions of franchised students from ISR17 to enable institutions to check that it is accurate and suitable for publication.

6. Where an institution does not have franchised students they should expect their franchising tables to be blank. In these instances we do not expect the institution to respond to the franchising element of this exercise.

7. We are conducting a similar exercise for higher education institutions (HEIs). After we have given the HEIs an opportunity to check their data, we plan to publish information on the number of students taught at FECs but franchised through HEIs. A list of institutions that are teaching franchised students registered at each HEI will be published.

Key points

8. Where we identify significant differences in the comparison of ISR17 data to HEIFES99, we will write to the institutions concerned and ask for an explanation.

9. If the data remain unreconciled, we may audit both sets of data to arrive at agreed figures. Any amendments to data following this exercise may result in retrospective adjustments to funding.

10. If institutions are concerned about the suitability for publication of the franchised data they should contact Anthony Ryan by 30 July 2001.

11. All institutions are invited to comment on the methods described in Annex A or in the SAS code.

Action required

12. Where we require a response it should be sent to Anthony Ryan no later than 30 July 2001.