Our use of subcontractors in Apprenticeships (2021-22 funding year)
Our use of subcontractors in Apprenticeships (2021/22 funding year)
A statement on the rationale and approach to subcontracting elements of the Apprenticeship offer at ICAS
Background
ICAS is committed to delivering high-quality Apprenticeships that meet the needs of Apprentices, employers and the wider labour market. In most cases, a part of the programme delivery of the Apprenticeship will be carried out by a subcontractor third-party that can deliver the class curriculum. This will only be in instances where the use of the third party would enhance the apprentice experience and opportunity through additional niche or expert provision and it is agreed with the employer that the service can meet or exceed the academic standard required within the Apprenticeship. This provision is also designed to support better geographical access for learners. At all times, ICAS leads the employer relationship.
Please note we are retaining the use of one subcontractor for the 2021/22 funding year and are not inviting additional offers.
Use of subcontractors
Our subcontract relationships will be in one of three forms:
- Subcontract to a third party for delivery of selected knowledge, skills or behaviours
- Subcontract to a third party for Functional Skills English and Maths delivery
- Employer delivery of knowledge, skills or behaviours.
Any subcontractor must pass a detailed due diligence process which includes but is not limited to: appraisal of Ofsted or applicable assurance reports for validation of quality, appraisal of trainer qualifications, business continuity plans and must be on the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) Register of Apprenticeship Training Providers. If a subcontractor is not on the register, they will not be approved for partnership for Apprenticeship programmes.
In all instances ICAS retain clear and transparent accountability for the quality of training provision, maintain proper and appropriate controls to manage the apprentice experience; and seek to ensure that value for money is achieved by efficient subcontractor management. These controls are validated by an annual subcontractor-controls evaluation carried out by an independent assurance specialist.
In all instances ICAS would provide quality assurance through monitoring by the Apprenticeship Manager and training officers of the organisation. The types of subcontract arrangement, quality assurance and costs of the models are explained in more detail below.
The written agreement (contract) with the employer for Apprenticeship provision will always list the costs of the subcontract in line with the Apprenticeship funding rules shown in Annex 1 so that all costs are transparent. A declaration is made by ICAS to the ESFA twice a year declaring any subcontractors used.
Subcontract types at ICAS
Third party delivery of selected knowledge, skills or behaviours
Where it is in the apprentice’s best interests by way of enhancing the apprenticeship experience, we can approve a third party to deliver selected modules from within our programme. This will only be in instances where the third party has sufficiently qualified persons and expertise to deliver niche or expert provision at or above the level required to meet learning outcomes.
Functional Skills English and Maths delivery
Where an Apprentice does not possess English and Maths transferable skills at level 2 or above, ICAS will select a training provider with specialism for delivery of the English and Maths Functional Skill qualifications necessary for the Apprentice to meet the requirements of the Apprenticeship standard. Where a specialist provider is unavailable ICAS would deliver these aims.
Services we provide to quality assure subcontracted provision
The Apprenticeships & Equalities Manager has responsibility for assuring the quality of delivery of subcontracted provision and a regular programme of activity is agreed to monitor provision.
Third party-subcontractors – that are not the employer
This includes a regular and substantial programme of quality-assurance checks on the apprenticeship training and on-programme assessment provided by delivery subcontractors, including visits at short notice and face-to-face interviews with staff and apprentices to ensure apprentices exist and are eligible; and involves direct observation of initial guidance, assessment and delivery of training and/or on-programme assessment.
In the functional skills subcontract model, ICAS retain all responsibility for resolving any issues and disputes between the employer and delivery subcontractor. In the employer subcontract model issues and disputes will be managed by the Apprenticeship & Equalities Manager.
Employer delivery of selected knowledge, skills or behaviours
Where it is in the apprentice’s best interests by way of enhancing the apprenticeship experience, we can approve the apprentice’s employer to deliver selected units from within our programme. This will only be in instances where the employer has sufficiently qualified persons and expertise to deliver at or above the level required to meet learning outcomes.
Subcontract funding
Functional Skills if subcontracted, will be subcontracted out at the exact ESFA funding rate of £471 per functional skill with ICAS absorbing the costs of quality assurance within our broad revenue streams.
Third party delivered knowledge, skills or behaviour will be funded at a price agreed by the employer using module pricing defined within ICAS’s module plan. This value takes into account variations for methods of delivery aligned to the funding rules for eligible and ineligible costs. The training price charged to the employer funded by the ESFA includes an amount for administration and the subcontracting costs we face are absorbed within this value. For the 21/22 cohort the administration of the apprenticeship per apprentice was charged at £3212 and absorbs the overall subcontracting management costs below:
We do not charge any management fee to subcontractors for managing the subcontract.
Summary of Funding retained for Subcontractor quality assurance and oversight:
Activity | Estimated annual cost to the provider | How this is reasonable and proportionate |
Subcontractor Management by Apprenticeships & Equalities Manager – To maintain quality of delivery and understanding of on programme challenges including annual appraisal of quality, annual quality development plan and annual review of policies on safeguarding and Prevent | £30 per hour, 2 hours monthly, 24 hours per subcontractor (£720) | ICAS absorb the cost of subcontractor management from within the administrative charge in the training price. |
Annual review of learner surveys– To maintain quality of delivery and understanding of on programme challenges | £30 per hour, 7 hours per subcontractor (£210) | Timescales allow for review of evidence and work to improvement action plans |
Annual observation of teaching and learning to include face to face interview with learners and staff (within the monitoring programme) | £30 per hour at 7 hours per activity, plus 1 x £100 travel contribution, (£310) | Timescales allow for review of evidence and work to improvement action plans, travel costs are minimised |
Short notice observation– To maintain quality of delivery and understanding of on programme challenges (within the monitoring programme) | £30 per hour at 7 hours per activity, plus 1 x £100 travel contribution, (£310) | Timescales allow for review of evidence and work to improvement action plans |
Other activities detailed within the monitoring programme | £30 per hour at 70 hours (10 days) (£2,100) | |
Total: £3,650 |
Summary of Funding retained for Subcontractor administrative functions including data returns:
Activity | Estimated annual cost to the provider | How this is reasonable and proportionate |
ILR management – To allow for processing at start, changes of circumstance, withdrawal and / or completion | No additional costs beyond conventional ILR management. | ICAS absorb the cost of subcontractor management from within their training price charged to the employer and do not profit from the subcontracted delivery. |
Subcontractor declaration – twice a year including financial expenditure profiling and reconciliation | £30 per hour, 4 hours per subcontractor (£120) | Allows checks to ensure accuracy and efficient processing on the ILR |
Total: £120 |
The above represents total costs per subcontractor and based upon the size of apprentice population per employer the combined cost of subcontractor management per funded apprentice is negligible and is subsequently of good value to the employer.
Our contracts with subcontractors
A contract is put in place between ICAS and each delivery subcontractor which specifies the following:
That the subcontractor must:
- Keep to the funding rules
- Provide us with data so that our data returns to the ESFA accurately reflect delivery information
- Give the ESFA and any other person nominated by the ESFA access to their premises and to all documents related to their delivery of apprenticeships
- Give ICAS sufficient evidence to allow:
- Assessment of their performance against Ofsted’s education inspection framework or the requirements of the QAA quality code;
- Incorporate the evidence the subcontractor provides into ICAS’s self– assessment report; and
- Guide the judgements and grades within ICAS’s self-assessment report
- Always have suitably qualified staff available to provide apprenticeship training and/or on-programme assessment
- Co-operate with ICAS to ensure that there is continuity of learning for apprentices if the subcontract ends for any reason
- Communicate in writing to ICAS if evidence of irregular financial or delivery issues arises. This could include, but is not limited to, non-delivery of training when funds have been paid, sanctions imposed by an awarding organisation, allegations of fraud, an inadequate Ofsted grade, not meeting relevant QAA quality code indicators, allegations or complaints by apprentices, employers, staff members, or other relevant parties
- The subcontractor must not use ESFA funding to make bids for, or claims from, any European funding on their own behalf or on our behalf.
- They must not use payments made by ESFA as match funding for ESF projects.
ESFA Funding Rules
Extract from Apprenticeship funding rules for main providers, August 2021 to July 2022, Version 1 explaining the content of our employer contracts regarding the use of subcontractors and why we have defined the costs of the activities undertaken.
- “P188 You must clearly describe to each employer and potential subcontractor, before each subcontracting relationship is agreed, the reason for subcontracting and all services you will provide and the associated costs when doing so.
This must include a list of specific costs for managing the subcontractor; specific costs for quality monitoring activities and specific costs for any other support activities offered by you to the subcontractor. All of these costs must be individually itemised and describe how each cost contributes to delivering high quality training. You must also explain how such costs are reasonable and proportionate to delivery of the subcontracted apprenticeship training.
P189 If you and an employer agree the use of delivery subcontractors, you must have an up-to-date written agreement in place with each employer that sets out the following for the delivery of their apprenticeship programme:
P189.1 The apprenticeship training and / or on-programme assessment that you will directly deliver;
P189.2 The amount of funding you will retain for your direct delivery;
P189.3 The apprenticeship training and / or on-programme assessment that each delivery subcontractor will contribute to the employer’s apprenticeship programme; P189.4 The amount of funding you will pay each delivery subcontractor for their contribution;
P189.5 The specific amount of funding you will retain to manage and monitor each delivery subcontractor;
P189.6 The specific amount of funding you will retain for each other support activity you will provide to each delivery subcontractor;
P189.7 The specific amount of funding you will retain for the monitoring you will undertake to ensure the quality of the apprentice training and / or onprogramme assessment you have contracted each delivery subcontractor to carry out;
P189.8 A detailed description of how the funding retained for each activity detailed in P189.5 to P189.7 contributes to delivering high quality training and how the funding retained is reasonable and proportionate to delivery of the apprenticeship training described in P189.3; and
P189.9 Any actual or perceived conflict of interest between you and any delivery subcontractors. For example, where you and a delivery subcontractor are part of the same group, share common directors or senior personnel, or where you will benefit financially from using a particular delivery subcontractor”.
Monitoring programme
An annual monitoring programme takes place which may include the following activities:
Activities to include:
- An observation of a group and / or individual teaching activity
- A head count / check of the attendance record for the given teaching activity
- Sampling of attendance records to ensure completeness
- Sampling of progress reviews to establish that actions relate to issues identified
- Sampling of apprentice assignments to ensure authenticity
- Evaluation of employer feedback collected by the subcontractor
- Evaluation of learner feedback collected
- A review of the Quality improvement plan or similar document
- Sample teaching staff cv(s) to establish occupational competence
- An observation of group and / or individual on programme assessment
- An observation of tri-partite progress review
- Interview(s) with teacher(s) of the subcontractor to ensure understanding of their given teaching session and awareness of the apprentice journey
- Interview(s) with an employer representative regarding the quality of delivery (see example employer interview)
- Interview(s) with learners to understand how the quality of delivery has been maintained and whether the provider has met the expectations of common processes (see example learner interview)
- Subcontractor Questionnaire
- Subcontractor Action Plan
The outcome of assurance activity within monitoring programmes is an annual opinion on the core and common practices of the subcontractor.
The scale of activity should be based upon the size of the learner population and amount of delivery expected by the subcontractor.
It would be expected that observations would take place at least twice a year with at least one at short notice.
Interviews with learners should be to at least 10% of the population subcontracted.
Interviews with employers should be with all employers for whom subcontractors deliver.
Detail of the rationale of opinion is provided in a separate annex.
Learner interview
Follows the typical pattern of the ESFA’s FE Learner Choices Satisfaction questionnaire with additional queries.
- Age
16-18
19-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65+
- Gender
Ratings
Extremely likely
Likely
Neither likely nor unlikely
Unlikely
Extremely unlikely
FE Choices typical questions
- Would they recommend the subcontracted provider to friends or family?
Extremely likely
Likely
Neither likely nor unlikely
Unlikely
Extremely unlikely
0 to 10 Questions, with 10 being extremely satisfied.
- How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the teaching on your course or activity
- How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the way staff treat you
- How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the support you get on this course or activity
- How satisfied or dissatisfied are you that staff respond to the views of learners
- How satisfied or dissatisfied are you that the course or activity is meeting your expectations
- How satisfied or dissatisfied are you that the course or activity is preparing you for what you want to do next
- How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the level of knowledge and expertise of training staff?
- How satisfied or dissatisfied are you that the training is relevant to your career or job?
- How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the training provided by your employer?
- How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the way your employer supports you in your training?
Employer interview
Use the basis of the FE employer choices question set but has been developed further.
- Would they recommend the subcontracted provider?
Ratings
Extremely likely
Likely
Neither likely nor unlikely
Unlikely
Extremely unlikely
0 to 10 Questions, with 10 being extremely satisfied.
- How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the overall quality of training
- How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your ability to influence the structure of training
- How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your ability to influence the content of training
- How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your ability to influence the content of training
- How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your ability to influence the duration of training
- How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the location of training
- How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the method of training
- How satisfied or dissatisfied are you that the course or activity is sufficiently training your employees for the job role they are in
- How satisfied or dissatisfied are you that the provider understands your organisation’s training needs?
- How satisfied or dissatisfied are you that the provider delivers training in a sufficiently flexible way to meet your needs?
- How satisfied or dissatisfied are you that the provider communicates with you effectively?
- How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the provider trainers’ professionalism
- How satisfied or dissatisfied are you that the provider delivers training in a way that reflects up to date practices within your business?
Narrative responses
- What are the strengths of the training delivery?
- What are the areas that the provider needs to develop in order to be more effective?
- Are there any additional services that you believe we need to provide to make the service more effective?
Opinions on subcontractor provision
Following review of provision, the following three opinions can be used:
Exceeds or meets Expectations
All, or nearly all, applicable Core and Common practices have been met.
Core and Common practices not met do not, individually or collectively, present any serious risks to the management of this area.
Requires improvement to meet expectations
Most applicable Core and Common practices have been met.
Core and Common practices not met do not present any serious risks. Some moderate risks may exist that, without action, could lead to serious problems over time with the management of this area.
Does not meet expectations
Several applicable core and common practices have not been met or there are major gaps in one or more of the applicable Core and Common Practices.
Core and Common practices not met present serious risk(s), individually or collectively, to the management of this area, and limited controls are in place to mitigate the risk. Consequences of inaction in some areas may be severe.
Failure to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate opinion can also result in a “does not meet expectations” view.
Guidance on opinions
Exceeds or meets expectations
All, or nearly all, applicable Core and Common practices have been met.
Core and Common practices not met do not, individually or collectively, present any serious risks to the management of this area.
There are examples of good practice in this area and no recommendations for improvement (exceeds expectations)
For meeting expectations:
- The provider has plans to enhance this area further.
- Student engagement in the management of this area is widespread and supported.
- Managing the needs of students is a clear focus of the provider's strategies and policies in this area.
Any recommendations may relate, for example, to:
- minor omissions or oversights
- a need to amend or update details in documentation, where the amendment will not require or result in major structural, operational or procedural change
- completion of activity that is already underway in a small number of areas that will allow the provider to meet the Core and Common practices more fully.
The need for action has been acknowledged by the provider in its review documentation or during the review, and it has provided clear evidence of appropriate action being taken within a reasonable timescale.
There is evidence that the provider is fully aware of its responsibilities for assuring quality: previous responses to external review activities provide confidence that areas of weakness will be addressed promptly and professionally.
Requires improvement to meet expectations
Most applicable Core and Common practices have been met.
Core and Common practices not met do not present any serious risks. Some moderate risks may exist that, without action, could lead to serious problems over time with the management of this area.
Any recommendations may relate, for example, to:
- weakness in the operation of part of the provider's governance structure (as it relates to quality assurance) or lack of clarity about responsibilities
- insufficient emphasis or priority given to assuring standards or quality in the provider's planning processes
- quality assurance procedures which, while broadly adequate, have some shortcomings in terms the rigour with which they are applied
- problems which are confined to a small part of the provision.
Plans that the provider presents for addressing identified problems before or at the review are under-developed or not fully embedded in the provider's operational planning.
The provider's priorities or recent actions suggest that it may not be fully aware of the significance of certain issues. However, previous responses to external review activities suggest that it will take the required actions and provide evidence of action, as requested.
Does not meet expectations
Several applicable core and common practices have not been met or there are major gaps in one or more of the applicable Core and Common Practices.
Core and Common practices not met present serious risk(s), individually or collectively, to the management of this area, and limited controls are in place to mitigate the risk. Consequences of inaction in some areas may be severe.
Any recommendations may relate, for example, to:
- ineffective operation of parts of the provider's governance structure (as it relates to quality assurance)
- significant gaps in policy, structures or procedures relating to the provider's quality assurance
- breaches by the provider of its own quality assurance management procedures.
Plans for addressing identified problems that the provider may present before or at the review are not adequate to rectify the problems, or there is very little or no evidence of progress.
The provider has not recognised that it has major problems or has not planned significant action to address problems it has identified.
The provider has limited understanding of the responsibilities associated with one or more key areas of the Core and Common practices or may not be fully in control of all parts of the organisation.
The provider has repeatedly or persistently failed to take appropriate action in response to external review activities.