Agenda item

A paper was presented to provide the Board with the latest performance information on the Adult Education Budget (AEB) programme being delivered on behalf of the MCA highlighting management actions being taken to mitigate risk. 

The Board noted that, in February 2021 the SYMCA had been awarded £39.29m devolved Adult Education Budget (AEB) for the academic year 2021/2022 and an additional £2.79m for Level 3 Adult Offer. 

The Board noted that AEB funding was split into 3 categories:

·         Grant Funded Provision (Colleges and Local Authorities) - £27.85m

·         Level 3 Provision (4 Colleges have an allocation)- £2.79m

·         Procured Provision - £10.2m.

S Sykes informed the Board that there was currently a concern around the pace of expenditure, with only 42% of profiled expenditure currently achieved.  Expenditure was notably below expectation on Lot 2 (9.7% expenditure achieved) and Lot 3 (6.5% expenditure achieved).  Level 3 provision expenditure was also considerably below profile (12.3% achieved).

A table at paragraph 2.3 of the paper highlighted underspends across the funded strands of activity, cumulatively totalling £10.66m.  Further details by provider and category were included in Appendices A and B to the paper.

The Board noted that Appendix A did not contain any details with regards to community learning.  It was noted that the local authorities were currently obtaining this information. 

S Sykes confirmed that the MCA currently had no corners with regards to grant funded provision. 

A table presented at paragraph 2.5 of the paper highlighted the current spend in each local authority district and the number of learners enrolled.

The Board noted that reviews to-date, were highlighting several issues as detailed below:

·        Competition between the MCA’s Lot 3 provision and the DWP’s Restart programme, with DWP funded work-coaches electing to refer individuals to the Restart programme ahead of MCA provision.

·        Labour market pressures impacting upon provider ability to recruit staff to deliver activity.

·        Ineligibility of individuals for the Lot 2 programme due to existing qualifications, impacting take-up.

·        Disconnect in provision available and demand with a large volume of change requests being received to refocus provision to latest demand.

The Board noted that the performance issues had been presented to the MCA Executive Management Board and senior officer who were currently considering options.  Close monitoring and performance review meetings were on-going with providers, and this would reaffirm delivery status and inform remedial actions required to address risk. 

On completion of the reviews an options paper would be presented to the Board. 

Councillor Lelliott raised concerns around the delivery of Lot 2 and Lot 3 programmes.  She queried if the delivery models of the programme providers could be amended to allow individuals to attend courses at different times during the day/evening. 

In response, S Sykes confirmed that the SYMCA were currently in discussion with programme providers around their delivery models.  There were concerns around some of the providers not having any local networks. 

Councillor Turpin raised concerns that the paper was inaccurate and fundamentally flawed due to the wrong matrix being used.  He felt that the paper did not demonstrate an accurate picture of grant providers, nor did it consider the usual approaches, which the sector would be subject to. 

In addition, Councillor Turpin said that expenditure was sighted as the profile for achievement.  However, services had not been subject to any expenditure monitoring.  He added that, the ILR would only detail those learners on regulated learner programmes, (which was less than one third of the SCC grant).  Councillor Turpin felt that it would be beneficial to add further information in the paper around achievement data payments. 

H George replied that the MCA had made a commitment to publish the ILR.  As previously highlighted, this paper did not include data from community learning providers.  This data was currently being obtained and did not apply to procured providers. 

Councillor Lelliott requested that it be placed on record that, she did not support Councillor Turpin’s comment around the paper being inaccurate and fundamentally flawed. 

D Fell asked how many individuals £10.66m equated to in terms of learners.  He also asked if there were any lessons to be learnt for future years with regards to the AEB.  In addition, he asked if a recommendation could be included in a future report setting out how the SYMCA might be able to get back on-track in relation to the pace of expenditure. 

A Foulkes said that, on behalf of the collective colleges point of view, the SYMCA was not working closely together enough to support and articulate how the AEB is working.  She considered that it would also be beneficial to undertake a mid-year lessons learnt review of the AEB and requested that there be a discussion at a future Board meeting around the re-allocation of funding. 

H George replied that the AEB was a new process, and it would take some time to get the systems and processes correct as they embed.  The re-allocation of funding was currently a live issue and would be discussed later on today’s agenda. 

Councillor Houghton requested that an update paper be presented at a future Board meeting.  H George acknowledged the request. 

RESOLVED – That the Board considered the performance information provided. 

N.B. AT THIS POINT, A FOULKES LEFT THE MEETING AND TOOK NO FURTHER PART IN THE DISCUSSION OR VOTING THEREON.