Providers that flout rules on revealing how much they topslice when subcontracting have been given a November 23 deadline to comply — or face having their funding suspended.

The Skills Funding Agency (SFA) has threated to suspend public money for lead providers that fail to publish their management fee details on their websites.

It comes around nine months after an FE Week investigation uncovered providers were ignoring rules that they must publish what they charge subcontractors. And while there was compliance with rules on listing the range of fees, these were as high as 40 per cent in some instances.

However, the SFA has now warned providers that “we will suspend your payments” if information is not made public by the deadline.

An SFA spokesperson said: “All colleges and other training organisations that subcontract must publish the actual funding paid and retained for each of their subcontractors in the [provider] funding years 2013 to 2014 and 2014 to 2015.”

The information should be made available on websites, and include current supply chain fees and charges policy. The SFA also wants the relevant weblinks provided on 2015 to 2016 subcontractor declaration forms.

The rule requiring colleges and independent learning providers (ILPS) to specify the management fees they charged each of their subcontractors over the previous academic year was introduced by the SFA in August last year.

But FE Week found four months later that rules were being ignored by a number of providers — including the country’s biggest SFA contractor at the time Learndirect (see right).

FE Week edition 120 - December 1, 2014
FE Week edition 120 – December 1, 2014

A Learndirect spokesperson said it published figures showing how much the company had paid and retained from each of its 73 subcontractors in 2013/14, out of its total £136.9m SFA allocation, on its website before Christmas.

But the Sheffield-based provider had not published the information for 2014/15 as FE Week went to press.

The company’s ‘supply chain fee policy’ webpage showed on Thursday (September 10) that it is was charging management fees up to 40 per cent of contract values — which was unchanged from when FE Week reported on the issue in early December.

A spokesperson for Learndirect, which was allocated £117.9m for 2015/16 by the SFA as of last month, said: “The business intends to publish its 2014/15 charges in advance of the November 23 deadline.”

Stewart Segal, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP), said that “any withholding of funds should be done as a last resort”.

“Some of the data is complex and the SFA needs to ensure that providers are very clear about how a breach has occurred,” he added.

Julian Gravatt, assistant chief executive at the Association of Colleges, said: “Colleges find themselves on both sides of the contracting relationship, as main and subcontractors, in a range of areas including both apprenticeships and higher education.

“It is right for everyone to look at subcontracting to ensure the maximum amount is spent on education and training, but you can’t really judge a price without knowing the service it’s buying.”

Editor’s comment

Looking for big top-slicers

The issue of top-slicing, of withholding public funding from the front line of education and training in the form of a ‘management fee’ to subcontractors, has featured in these pages before.

And FE Week has always been supportive of Skills Funding Agency (SFA) efforts to bring some transparency and accountability to this practice.

But, up until this point, and thankfully no further than November 23, these efforts have had no teeth.

It is for this reason that once again FE Week is supportive of the SFA in putting forward the very serious threat of a suspension of funding for non-compliance.

Ultimately, all this will mean is that lead providers are far more likely to comply, to reveal how much they top-slice on each contract — it does not mean they must adopt fair management fee levels.

However, what the SFA’s threat will allow, is for FE Week to watch closely the practices of those who think it’s reasonable to cream off 40 per cent of SFA cash before handing on a contract.

To those providers I would say we’ll be looking for you, and we’ll be looking at you.

Chris Henwood


Latest education roles from

Student Engagement and Enrichment Lead

Student Engagement and Enrichment Lead

Bournemouth and Poole College

Tutorial Learning Mentor

Tutorial Learning Mentor

Barnsley College

School Liaison Admissions Tutor

School Liaison Admissions Tutor

Riverside College

Study Coach

Study Coach

Heart of Yorkshire Education Group

Lecturer in Maths

Lecturer in Maths

Heart of Yorkshire Education Group

Apprentice Development Leader

Apprentice Development Leader

GP Strategies

Your thoughts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


  1. For too long, some lead providers have ignored the repeated requests from the SFA to publish their management fee details, and one can only assume that this is because there was no consequence.

    Those providers charging reasonable management fees and providing value for money to their supply chain have nothing to hide; the others need to be exposed.

    Although it is extreme to threaten funding suspension, this is likely to be an effective way of ensuring compliance.

    This is a positive step forward!

  2. Chris
    Utter crass reporting and being aggressive and threatening is not called for

    Let’s have a proper debate about what sub contracting brings and how to manage the risks. Remember fe week is called fe week because you primarily support fe colleges who are the biggest cuprits of subcontracting of £750m so be careful what you sow

    Ps 3aaa – biggest 16-18 provider in the country and no sub contracting and grade 1 ofsted and we have published our criteria on our website site

    Please be responsible in your reporting and ps as always won’t be published as doesn’t follow the nick linford line !

    • Wow, wonders never cease; I actually agree with something you’ve written Peter! FE week should have bigger fish to fry than this and Chris/Nick trying to be the conscience of FE is more than a little ironic!

  3. Peter – I’m not getting into the issues you appear to be having with fe week but, as you say you have published your criteria, I thought I’d look at on your website to see the style used. The link on the home page say: “In line with Skills a Funding Agency requirements…”. Hardly good English for a Grade 1 Ofsted.

  4. Chris,

    I agree with you this is long overdue and it is about time some of these ruthless lead contractors are revealed. Hopefully it will be a deterrent for then to charge outrageous management fees and they will think twice about it. FE Week are the voice of the sector and I applaud you!!