Public Consultation

The future of the Independent Living Fund

Lancashire County Council Response

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?7
This would mean the closure of the ILF in 2015.

The progress made around personalisation of care since the ILF fund was set up means it no longer makes sense to have a separate social care funding stream administered by a board of trustees, with a different set of rules and remits from the mainstream care and support system, so LCC are in favour of devolving the funding to local government and closing the ILF in 2015.

Working to one set of rules would be an advantage in terms of transparency and ensuring that all our customers are treated equally and fairly according to their individual need. However a clear transition needs to take place. It is imperative that at the point of closure enough funding is transferred to the Local Authorities to cover the same level of gross fundingas the existing ILF arrangement.

LCC have been proactive in supporting people to access ILF (in terms of numbers and value) which means any transfer of funding needs to be based on existing monetary value not based on an estimate usingnational funding per head or similar.

Also the proposal needs to consider how any reductions in the level of service user contributions will be funded, which may arise due to differences between the way local authorities and the ILF calculate the level of service user contribution.

Given the current financial challenges facing Local Authorities, Lancashire County Council would not be in a position to fund a shortfall should the eventual transfer of funding be below the level required to continue to meet the level of need covered by the existing arrangement.

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?

This would depend partly on whether or not the Government is proposing any conditions or ringfencingat the point the funding is devolved.If the funding comes with no conditions attached and the authority makes the decision to treat all new and existing service users the same in terms of assessment and corresponding personal budget, irrespective of the history of their ILF funding, then it is possible that some existing ILF users are bound tosee a change in their overall level of funding.

There could be a significant risk to the existing independence of some ILF users if their personal budgets as assessed by the local authority are less thantheir existing ILF level of funding, or due to not meeting the authorities FACS criteria are not eligible for support at all. There may also be an element of the group 1 service users that don't want to be assessed by the local authority if they aren't already known to us. Any reduction to a service user's funding like this potentially places an increased burden on informal carers or at its most serious jeopardises a service user's existing place in the community.

There may also be a change in the level of financial contribution which the service user is required to make to their package of care as the local authority would be implementing it's own charging policy terms and conditions which willdiffer from the existing ILF ones.

There may be a one off issue to overcome with regard to the timing of payments if the existing ILF payments timetable isn't aligned with the authority payments in terms of whether they are physically paid in arrears or in advance.

The Impact on the service user could be mitigated by having a transition period where ILF users continue to receive the existing level of funding at the point of transfer, and then any reductions to overall funding levels or changes to client contributions made incrementally. The administrative burden of carrying out a transitional type arrangement like this would be significant though as authorities would be required to track both levels of funding simultaneously. LCC would expect additional funding to be provided to cover the cost of any increased administrative burden placed on the Council as a result of the funding transfer.

Opportunities could be provided to existing ILF users with regard to Community Support Planners to look at alternative ways of enabling them to remain independent in the community. Any group 1 service users previously unknown to the authority could be signposted to the Voluntary and Community sector if they aren't eligible for a funded service due to not meeting the FACS criteria. Some of the existing ILF funding or additional funding could be provided and ringfenced for developing these kind of community solutions.

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?

Again this will depend on how the government approaches the transfer in terms of the levels of funding attached and any accompanying conditions. The key issue in terms of the financial impact is that existing funding levels must be maintained at the point the funding is devolved to local authorities. In order to maximise support for service users LCC have been proactive in supporting people to access ILF (in terms of numbers and value) which means any transfer of funding needs to be at existing funding levels and not based on an estimate of national funding per head (or any other kind of figure calculated on an arbitrary basis), or LCC willhave to fund the shortfall. History has shown that where other funding streams have transferred to local authority control there hasn't always been sufficient levels of funding to meet the existing commitments.

There is also a riskthat the overall level of contribution which service users currently provide towards their care will reduce. The service user contribution for ILF funding includes elements of allowances which are currently excluded from the Local Authorities own charging policy. This will lead to a reduction in the overall service user contribution and consequently the total amount of funding available to meet their need will reduce. LCC would not be in a position to fund this shortfall so either there will need to be a condition that existing service user contributions are maintained, or additional funding provided to Local Authorities to make up the difference.

There will be an increase in the level of resource required to provide financial support once funding has transferred. As a minimum local authorities will want to track and understand the impact that transferring the devolved funds has had on the authority, but there isalso likely be an increase in the number of service users to support overall, as the group 1 service users become local authority funded. In addition any conditions or ring fencing of funds attached to the funding transfer will potentially require additional resource in terms of monitoring and reporting. LCC would expect additional funding to be provided to cover the cost of any increased administrative burden placed on the Council as a result of the funding transfer.

An increase in the level of operational and commissioning support will be required if the overall number of service users increases in terms of assessment, support planning, review and commissioning of packages.

Any reduction in the overall level of fundingan individual service user receives is likely to lead to an impact on that service user's package of support. This will present a challenge to the operational staff in terms of providing explanations to the service user and potentially an increase in complaints to the local authority if the service users' expectations are no longer met. In addition ILF reviews tend to have a 'lighter' touch than a more robust local authority review. Existing ILF users may not like this increased scrutiny/accountability of how their new local authority personal budget can be used

If overall budgets are reduced there may be a knock on impact on informal carers who potentially will no longer be able or willing to provide informal support at the increased required level. This may lead to the need for an increase in Supported Living opportunities or Shared Lives opportunities.

In order to help deal with some of the likely complaints as a result of reductions in budgetsit would be helpful if DWP would provide guidelines to formulate responses. In particular clear legal advice would be helpful to be provided to local authorities around the changes as well as formulated press releases to help with potential poor representation in the local media.

Clear upfront communication well in advance of the transfer from the ILF to existing service users explaining the changes will be essential. This should include setting out the rationale for the devolving of the funds, the legal status of the service users, the role of the local authority and the potential impact to individual service users' levels of overall funding.

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?

Group 1 users may or may not be known to local authorities so consent to share this information will have to be obtained from these users by the ILF, and communicated to local authorities.

Some Group 1 users may not be eligible for local authority services under FACS as they may not meet the substantial or critical threshold. This subset of service users will potentially find themselves dealing with the transition to receiving no form of ongoing funded package at all, and will need to be helped through this change. Any service user falling into this category will need to be adequately supported to access services from the voluntary and community sector by the local authority. They will also need to be provided with clear information well in advance by the ILF that this outcome is a possibility.

It is possible that some people in Group 1 may not have the mental capacity to consent to share information and family members may not want local authority involvement. However a 'best interest' decision may have to be made by ILF to inform the Local Authority to ensure needs of ILF user are met.

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?
The ILF need to provide clear ongoing communication to service users informing them of the plans, the rationale behind the changes and what the potential impact is to them as individuals.It would be useful to illustrate the changes using some practical examples which show how service user needs are assessed and how the overall level of funding is determined currently, and then compare that to the equivalent situation post 2015. Service Users which previously have had no local authority contact will need to be signposted to a relevant contact in each authority.
Joint reviews could be undertaken with the ILF before 2015 and the needs assessed jointly, with the new budget being assessed using existing local authority RAS systems. This would give the ILF users time to see the impact on their overall level of funding as individuals. If required they could then look at alternative supports in the community in preparation for any change to their overall existing funding in 2015.
Local Authorities need to be kept up to date on an ongoing basis with the proposaland relevant timescales in order to help them plan and inform strategies around the operational, commissioning and financial impact. As 2015 approaches if the decision is taken to devolve the funding then the ILF need to provide local authorities with a list of the group 1 and group 2 services users, well in advance, together with levels of existing funding so they can be cross referenced to authority records, assess how many are currently unknown, update systems and identify the scale of any changes that will need to be dealt with.
Once the decision is made to devolve the funding then clear and simple step by step transition rules should be provided so that local authority staff are able to implement the changes required at an individual service user level. It would be helpful if the DWP provided some specific training with regard to the transition rules to make the transition as seamless as possible.