-optimized.jpg){kind=avatar}
Funding for training is in short supply, reports Raymond Clarke, of SAFE Training.
At a time when the guarding sector is making plans to meet the requirements of regulation of the guarding sector next year, concerns are beginning to emerge with regard to the availability of public funding for training. The problems relate to whether there is sufficient capacity to meet industry needs, and also the lack of uniformity on a geographical basis which will lead to funding for some, but not for others. This focus for this article is funding from the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) in England; Scotland and Wales are different again.
The Current Opportunities
Currently, there are essentially three key approaches that can be taken by companies in England to funding the forthcoming training requirement from LSC sources.
Employer Training Pilot (ETP)
The strengths of the ETP scheme are that it provides level two training and certification at no cost to the employer, which can include training and qualifications approved by the SIA prior to licensing.
Characteristics
? Provides funding for training providers to deliver training on a per candidate basis.
? Company is usually compensated for the time that the trainee is on the programme
? Candidates must be 19 or older and not possess a level two qualification or equivalent
Constraints/Issues
? ETP funding is available in less than 40 per cent of LSC areas.
? Many ETP areas no longer support qualifications of the type approved by the SIA for licensing.
? Training must be provided by an approved training company (not the employer)
? Programmes cannot be supported once they become mandatory.
? Only providers contracted by the local LSC can offer ETP funded training in that LSCโs area. This can reduce choice of awarding body and training provider.
Franchising with a college
Under this arrangement, the company undertaking the training (including security companies), registers its students with a college, and functions as an extension to the college. The company then benefits from a percentage of the funding provided by the LSC to the college.
Characteristics
? Funding is provided on a per candidate basis.
? Colleges usually pay about 60-65pc of the fee that they receive from the LSC, some £65-£70 for the security officerโs award.
? Funding is likely to continue beyond the date when licensing becomes mandatory.
Constraints
? Up to 5pc of college budgets can be spent on franchise activity. Those expert in this area tend to have already exceeded this limit.
? Colleges are finding it increasingly difficult to work outside of their local area unless they have long term established relationships.
? The LSC has indicated that colleges should be paying franchisees at a rate of 85pc. Whilst this is not mandatory, it will act as a disincentive to colleges to engage in this type of activity if their margins begin to shrink.
? College budgets are under significant pressure and; franchising is not always attractive to colleges.
LSC/SIA lead college scheme
This operates in a similar manner to the franchise arrangements, with key differences:
Characteristics
? The SIA and LSC select colleges to function as lead colleges for the sector. These colleges then manage networks of training providers.
? The funding provided is in advance of that provided by the franchising colleges due to changes in the rules applied by LSCs. Funding is fixed at £107 per candidate.
Constraints
? It is unlikely that there will be sufficient provision in the lead college system to support the needs of the industry.
? Not all organisations will be able to access funding from their local lead college.
? The colleges are not accountable to the industry in the way that they manage their networks.
? Experience in the door supervision sector has demonstrated that not all awarding bodies will be supported by all lead colleges, reducing choice to employers in respect of awarding body and indeed training partners in some regions.
Other Arrangements
Whilst the three schemes detailed above, cover most options in England, there are some alternative schemes in some LSC areas. The message here is that it is always worthwhile to keep a close eye on what your local LSC is offering.
Problem
The problems associated with the funding regime in England are complex. The current structure will provide funding for some companies, but not for others. It supports choice of provider or certification body in some areas, but not in others. Some schemes support employer led delivery, whilst in others the employer is required to engage a training company. None of the schemes support training for people other than those that have been EU nationals (including accession states) since September 2001 and some schemes are age or qualification dependent. Some schemes are likely to continue post regulation; others will no longer be available.
Under the current system, it is possible to envisage two companies separated by 100m, offering the same services and pitching to the same clients. One might have its training fully funded in the run-in to regulation, and be compensated for the time that their trainees are studying; the other might not be able to gain access to funding at all, or perhaps at a vastly reduced rate. The only difference between the two will be the postcode. The problem however, at least for the next nine months, will not only be restricted to these operational difficulties.
Funding
The current financial year will be an extremely challenging period in the education sector in general as the LSC budget is very tight. In response, LSCs at a local level have been tightening their belts and this will inevitably impact upon the availability of funding to support training across all industry sectors without exception. Colleges, which are a key source of funding for our sector, are experiencing problems with budgets reduced or capped and little opportunity for growth. This lack of growth militates against colleges embarking on contracts with new clients, and many colleges are now focusing on a smaller geographical coverage by way of ensuring that they can balance their books. For the security industry, these financial pressures have clearly come at an unfortunate time.
Way forward
Unless more funding is released into the LSC this year, or funding is specifically earmarked for the security industry, which would appear to be extremely unlikely, a significant amount of training for regulation is unlikely to attract any public funds. So what do security companies do in these circumstances?
1) Unless you have an agreement for funding that is already in place, do not assume that you will access funding. Work with your clients to ensure that they are aware of the additional costs that are being carried by your business as it responds to the new regulatory requirements.
2) Talk to your local LSC to identify any support that they might be able to provide. Telephone numbers for local offices are available on the LSC web-site www.lsc.gov.uk and will also be listed in your telephone directory.
3) Approach your local college to determine whether they would be willing to enter a franchise agreement with your organisation. Better still; approach a lead college, keeping an eye on the SIA website for announcements on the approval of lead colleges.
4) Do not consider funding as a short-term issue. While you might not be successful this year, you may reap future benefits from relationships that you start to build this year.
5) Work with your training provider. SAFE give advice to its customers on how to approach colleges in respect of funding and have brokered deals for a number of companies. While there are no guarantees, at least we know how the system works and who to talk too.
In the longer term, the principles underpinning access to funding in a regulated industry should ideally include the following:
l Funding should be available to all companies, large or small, irrespective of where they are operating, in an identical manner based on the quality of that delivery.
l Access to funding should not be used to influence an employer on the awarding body that they might choose, or indeed the training company that they might select where standards are being met. In short, education should be demand- and not funding-led.
l The mechanism for delivering funding should be efficient, maximising the proportion of that funding supporting delivery.
Perhaps this is an early challenge for the proposed Sector Skills Body for the security industry? If the new organisation can work with the LSC to deliver against these principles, it will be a tremendous achievement.
