You may recall that in my last post I pointed out that the latest Youth Guarantee funding conditions are not workable.
funding conditions 4.1 and 5.4 contradict each other.
defines 1 EFTS as 100 credits.
defines 1 EFTS as 120 credits.
situation is as a result of a well-meaning but flawed policy change designed to
deliver 20% more funding to YG providers. However, in practice it will significantly
reduce funding for certain YG providers – especially the more successful. I know
of one case where it could result in a cut of nearly 60%.
been promising to resolve the anomaly since December 2018 but, despite acknowledging
that a solution is urgent, there has been no action.
where my good idea comes in. YG has been around since 2012. TEC took until 2018
to recognize that funding was insufficient. So, pending finding a way of
delivering 20% more funding without disadvantaging some providers, TEC should
make a one-time payment equal to 20% of the funding delivered to providers from
2012 to 2018.
TEC is very quick to claim back overfunding. It would be only fair for TEC to
make up underfunding.
Following up on my previous post I have now reviewed TEC’s 2018 funding conditions for Youth Guarantee.
Please email me if you would like a copy of my review. If you are to use Youth Guarantee funding in 2018 I strongly suggest that you read the review. There are some very significant differences between the 2017 and 2018 conditions.
If you receive TEC Now you will have received a notification on Tuesday 25 April that Conditions for 2017 for Youth Guarantee funding are available. As is often the case with TEC clicking on the link will have displayed the page that reads “Our new website – page not found”.
If however you search on the TEC website you might, if you’re lucky, come across YG funding conditions dated 24 April 2017.
Now, here’s the interesting thing. These conditions, like all YG conditions since 2012, are missing a specific condition that relates to claiming funding. This clause, which appears for other funding sources stipulates that for funding to be claimed for a student’s enrolment, that student must have “completed 10% or one month of the course for which they have enrolled, whichever is the earlier.”
Until last year the missing clause didn’t much matter because the SDR Manual included the rule (see page 30 of the 2016 SDR Manual version 1.1). However with the introduction of the concept of “confirmed enrolments” in the SDR Manual (2016 SDR Manual version 1.2) the clause that described the 10%/one month rule disappeared.
One wonders who this may affect providers receiving YG funding for the first time in 2017.