North Wales Response to ILF consultation Oct 2012 – Wrexham, Flintshire, Conwy & Anglesey

Introduction

The four North Wales Authorities detailed above came together to develop a joint response to the Department of Work & Pensions (DWP) consultation on the future of the Independent Living Fund (ILF.

Question 1
Do you agree with the Government’s proposal that the care and support needs of current ILF users should be met within the mainstream care and support system, with funding devolved to local government in England and the devolved administrations in Scotland and Wales? This would mean the closure of the ILF in 2015
We would like it to be noted that we believe there are difficulties of making recommendations which potentially have different implications across the whole of the UK, since each nation is at a very different stage in the development of approaches to independent living. Although Welsh Government is planning to consult on a model of Citizen Directed Support in Wales, this remains at an early stage of development.
As the Government are proposing to devolve ILF funding to the Welsh Government, we recommend that these proposals are considered within the context of the Sustainable Social Services for Wales white paper, the forthcoming Social Services (Wales) Bill, and proposals for introducing a model of Citizen Directed Support.
Unfortunately the consultation paper on the future of ILF contains no detail about future funding arrangements. In order to make an informed response it would be necessary to know whether the full proportion of the budget will be devolved, whether it will be ring fenced, if it will include administration costs, what arrangements will be in place to allow for inflation and whether this will be applied across the country on a proportional or historical basis.
The four North Wales Authorities involved would welcome an assurance from the UK and Welsh Government that if the ILF ends in 2015, the subsequent transition and future funding arrangements do not result in reduced funding for existing ILF recipients.
One of our primary concerns is that if the ILF is ended in 2015, severely disabled people who could previously be supported by the fund to live in the community will be forced into residential care, regardless of whether this is in their best interests.
If ILF ends in 2015 and Welsh Government decide to devolve the budget to local authorities the following points need to be considered:
A £50 per week cap on charges for services with the local authority provision improves equity for people.
A transparent system for awarding the funding would need to be agreed – currentlysome people with similar needs have accessed ILF funding and others have not as the eligibility threshold has changed over time.
There is an opportunity to develop a model of Citizen Directed Support that is equitable and transparent.
Processes could be streamlined with less duplication, one point of contact, efficiencies could be realised through billing and accounts management and a reduced need for separate financial records and bank accounts.
The local authority already has an established system for the administration of direct payments.
Opportunities could arise for the redistribution of resources to benefit an increased number of people.
There would be an opportunity to review and change eligibility for services against current guidance and the clear intentions set out within the Social Services (Wales) Bill.
Existing ILF users would need to be reassessed under any new eligibility criteria, impacting significantly on the capacity within involved Social Work Teams.
There could be a potential impact on internal systems, processes and back room functions of the department.
Devolved funding would need to match the cost of meeting individual need and include administration costs. Failure to do this could result in the department being in detriment.
The ILF client contribution is higher than the charges levied bythe local authority. Therefore, any devolved funding would need to cover the difference otherwise the local authority could be required to fund the shortfall.
Depending on how any future funding is transferred to the local authority, the administration and distribution would be likely to incur additional costs.
A change may provide the opportunity to ensure that available money is used to support people to meet personal outcomes rather than being awarded an amount of money for life without any measure on what it has achieved.
Question 2
What are the key challenges that ILF users would face in moving from joint ILF/Local Authority to sole Local Authority funding of their care and support needs? How can any impacts be mitigated?
There is currently a lack of equity with many people with similar needs receiving differing levels of support. People who met the criteria for ILF funding are able to enjoy opportunities that are life enhancing, whilst those that did not are more likely to have support to meet basic eligible needs. Similarly ILF users tend to benefit from 1-1 support rather than shared or group arrangements.
People have raised concerns about changes in payment schedules, administration processes and increased auditing requirements from the local authorities.
ILF currently fund higher support costs than the local authority may be prepared to fund. This could result in people losing valued relationships or face making up any shortfall from personal funds.
It appears likely that the proposed end to the ILF is linked to the wider welfare reform agenda. If this is the case the overall impact on people’s lives needs to be considered.
The ILF was implemented to enable disabled people to remain living independently within their own communities. There is a danger that an increased number of people may be forced to live in residential care even if this is not in their best interests if insufficient funding is made available.
ILF funding is currently used to support people with challenging behaviours. Funding may impact on local health service budgets.
ILF funding plays a significant role in supporting families in their caring roles. The impact on family breakdown as a result of reduced support could have a profound affect on local authority budgets. Similarly there could be increased demand for local carer support with further resourcing implications.
ILF funding is utilised within shared living schemes and often free’s up local authority support to provide 1-1 support for people not in receipt of ILF funding.
If local authorities need to find additional resources, forced efficiencies in other areas could impact on the lives of people receiving mainstream services.
Devolving the funding into a model of Citizen Directed Support would enable individuals to continue to choose their own priorities and have the autonomy to use the available money to meet measurable outcomes.
ILF currently funds holiday support costs that the local authority would not consider in the majority of cases.
A key challenge to existing ILF users if they were to move to sole local authority funding is in ensuring that quality of life is not sacrificed by inflexible rules on what can be funded.
Unless the Government make a commitment to fund additional administration costs there is a risk that the total amount of support currently available will be eroded.
There have been concerns raised that care costs could be consumed by increased administration costs.
Question 3
What impact would the closure of the ILF have on Local Authorities and the provision of care and support services more widely? How could any impacts be mitigated?
The impact on local authorities began with the closure of the ILF to new applicants in 2010. This impact has been financial, but has also created a two tier system, providing a lot of benefits for a relatively small number of people.
If the devolved budget is administered via the direct payments system this could result in increased demands on the third party support agency and potential increased costs.
Concerns were raised that there could be an adverse affect on the ability of unpaid carers to cope should ILF funding cease. There is also the potential for increased demands to be placed on local carer services.
Any anger or dissatisfaction from existing ILF users is likely to be aimed at local authorities who will be left to manage the consequences of ILF closing.
Any transfer of funding needs to be handled sensitively, people must be well informed; any proposed system needs to be clearly understood by everyone.
Administration costs need to be considered within any transfer of money. Administering these on a locality basis would build in efficiency.
Funds need to be ring fenced, with assurances that these do not shrink over time or get absorbed into central funding.
If there is going to be a reduction in individual funding this should be reduced over an agreed period so as alternative solutions and adjustments can be made.
It is important that local authorities reach out to ILF users to fully engage them in the handover process.
There is a concern that some ILF users will be forced out of the community into residential care, putting further demands on residential services. We would suggest that an impact assessment is conducted to determine the likely impact. If analysis shows that this to be the likely outcome of closing the ILF, the Government and local authorities must commit to planning in order to mitigate potential negative impacts on people and service provision.
Question 4
What are the specific challenges in relation to Group 1 users? How can the Government ensure this group are able to access the full range of Local Authority care and support services for which they are eligible?
Increased workload for local authorities.
There may be group 1 users who have been benefiting from large ILF funded care packages who do not meet the local authority’s eligibility criteria. Group 1 funded users are likely to have high expectations of the amount of care the local authority will provide. There is an increased risk that these people may not be supported in their own homes due to associated costs and could have to move to residential care.
Local authorities will be left to address complaints if individual care packages reduce.
It is important that these people understand the mainstream social care systems to ensure that they are not missed, understand their rights to assessment etc. Communication should engage all relevant stakeholders and be available in a range of accessible formats, media and languages to ensure disabled people can access it.
Group 1 ILF users are likely to have little experience of the mainstream social care systems, so may require a disproportionate level of support initially.
Question 5
How can DWP, the ILF and Local Authorities best continue to work with ILF users between now and 2015? How can the ILF best work with individual Local Authorities if the decision to close the ILF is taken?
There is a view that the decision to close ILF has already been made. It is difficult for Local Authorities to reassure individuals who may consider the consultation to be tokenistic.
ILF need to inform the local authority of potential group 1 users, so as a transition can be planned.
ILF need to support there users to enter into a proactive relationship with the local authority to aid the planning and transition.
ILF users and their families should be given all the information needed to enter into a genuine consultation. Currently there are too many unknowns for people to have informed opinions.
The ILF need to work with ILF users and local authorities to develop a clear communication plan.
Local planning groups would enable all parties to work together to implement plans.
The ILF, DWP, Governments and local authorities must continue to engage with ILF users and ensure continuity of support to 2015 and beyond. ILF users and their representatives must be encouraged to fully engage with local authorities in the process of support planning.