 |
access key options 
skip navigation what's new home site map search
disability benefits consortium home page
about us | appeals support | benefits | contact us | frequently asked questions | links | make a donation | membership | publications | services | tax credits | what you can claim
Review of the Independent Living Fundsbackground
terms of reference of the review
the operational framework of the review
conclusions of the review
more information
On May 3, 2006 Anne McGuire, Minister for Disabled People, announced a review of the Independent Living Funds (ILFs). The last such review was the quinquennial review held in 2001.
The ILFs are Non Departmental Public Bodies (NDPB). Regular reviews of NDPBs are required following Cabinet Office guidance entitled "Light Touch" to ensure that the NDPB is delivering high quality services, efficiently and effectively.
The findings of the review were published in March 2007 as the Review of the Independent Living Funds.
The review was intended to be carried out within the context of the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit report 'Improving the Life Chances of Disabled People', and the Department of Health's White Paper 'Our health, Our care, Our say'.
The terms of reference for the review were:
The ILF was reviewed using an operational framework of principles and values based on the views of service users and from a wider body of research. These were:
The ILFs though UK-wide in nature has wide variation in take-up rates. The total numbers of people supported via the ILFs are very small compared with the potential client population. People are also unable to access the ILFs for a variety of other reasons associated with the eligibility criteria and operational rules.
The rules also bar many people with very high support needs from applying to the ILFs. The review concludes that the ILFs are characterised by an unacceptably high level of inequity that must be addressed as a matter of the utmost urgency.
People’s experience of the ILF is that it is not transparent. People often do not know how their money has been calculated (or how it should be); they have little knowledge of the organisation and its decision making; and they are uncertain about whether and how they can challenge those decisions.
The review finds that the ILFs do not meet many basic expectations about the consistency of decision making, accountability for decisions, and ensuring dignity for service users, a recurrent theme from the evidence being that the existence of the ILF is one of the "best kept secrets." The review has made recommendations to improve advocacy and support for people using the ILFs, and also to address structural and operational factors to improve the visibility and comprehensibility of the ILF’s systems and processes.
The review makes recommendations for reforming and simplifying the eligibility criteria to improve accessibility. It also addresses the numerous anomalies which exist between the rules of the ILF and those adopted by local authority social services departments.
“We do not believe it is in the interests of service users for there to be different and contradictory operating systems in respect of issues such as charging, the treatment of benefits, occupational pensions, capital limits and upratings. We have recommended that these inconsistencies are tackled urgently.
The duplication of functions between the ILF and social services is also an impediment to accessibility, and we have recommended that these are resolved by the integration of key processes of application and review.”
“Making choice a reality requires the development of life planning, user-led support systems, self-assessment, and resource allocation systems. Our evidence does not indicate that the ILF performs well against such criteria, particularly in comparison with the leading edge of policy and practice that is apparent elsewhere.”
The review recommends a series of reviews of policy and practice, and accompanying strategic development undertaken in partnership with local authorities and other agencies. It also recommends the integration of assessment between the ILF and its partner agencies.
The review recommended that improvements should be made in the flexibility and responsiveness of the ILF. This will have implications for the ways in which ILF money can be spent. It also recommends that the ILF should recognise the support needs of ILF users as employers as a matter of policy rather than as a matter of discretion as is currently the case.
“The restrictions on how ILF money can be spent do not sit comfortably with the new spirit of independent living that is being encouraged in the wake of the Improving Life Chances report from the PM’s Strategy Unit. If the ILF is to play a continuing role it must sweep away increasingly anachronistic rules which limit the opportunities for people to live their lives.”
“The ILF originated at a time when the prevailing model of disability was a largely medical rather than social one. The ILF is aware of the changing ideological and policy environment around disability and independent living. However, it has not championed such changes or sought to be at the leading edge of development. The evidence does not indicate that the ILF has the ideological sophistication required of an organisation promoting new models of independent living.”
The recommendations made throughout the review suggest the need for considerable changes in the rules and procedures of the ILFs in the short term but also considers "where and whether the ILFs fit within future strategies on independent living.”
“these changes do not offer a medium or longer term alternative to the preferred option of a smooth transition to comprehensive integration into a national system of personalised budgets.”
It recommends that the ILFs should remain in their present form until 2009/10 at which point a further decision should be made. The suggestion is that at that point the ILF may cease.
“In the longer term, however, it is anomalous to retain a separate NDPB with responsibility for a large amount of social care expenditure, operating to different rules and remits from mainstream activities. With the anticipated move towards individual budgets such incongruence will become more pointed. The case for a separate and continuing existence for the ILF beyond the medium term is not therefore accepted.
The challenge for the ILF in the next stage of its life cycle is to be an excellent partner in the pursuit of full integration of personalised budgets. The best interests of all disabled people wishing to live independently must take precedence over any issues of organisational interest. A better chance for a good quality independent life should be the goal to unite the ILF and its partner organisations in the coming years.”
In reaching these conclusions four key assumptions are made:
In a letter to "Community Care" (29 March - 4 April 2007) Bob Hudson and Melanie Henwood, the two consultants commissioned by the DWP to carry out the ILF review said that ILF would be replaced by a "national framework administered locally".
