Tag: ILF

Should the #ILF close? Yes. But… (updated)

It’s not efficiencies. It’s not bloated public spending. It’s disabled people not being supported to meet the most basic elements of day-to-day life – getting out of bed, making a cup of tea, or going to the supermarket.

I’ve immodestly quoted from a post I wrote over 3 year ago on the Independent Living Fund, when it was announced it was closed to new applicants. 6 months later, I wrote another post after it was officially announced ILF was to close from 2015, noting responsibility was likely to fall to those well known cash-rich organisations, local councils.

Today, a court of appeal bid to overturn the abolition of the ILF has been approved. I haven’t seen the full judgment, but it seems to cite both the Equality Act (and great work from the EHRC for intervening to this effect) and that the decision to close the Fund didn’t take account of the flavour of consultation responses.

This is good news.

It doesn’t solve the problem, though, of what to do with the Independent Living Fund in the long term.

For me, the definitive report on what to do with the Independent Living Fund was written in 2006 by Melanie Henwood and Bob Hudson. It notes the peculiar history of the ILF: set up in 1988 as a transitional arrangement, a related new fund created in 1993, the original fund closed to new applications but replaced by an extension fund, all meaning there have actually been two funds operating in parallel since 1993. The report also highlights the huge number of considerations that have to be taken into account when doing anything with the ILF, not least of which is recognising the vital support it provides to 19,000 people.

And it also notes the ILF is anomalous in the long term, and that it continues to account for a large amount of social care expenditure whilst operating to different rules and remits that are incongruent to mainstream social care. It also notes ILF can result in inequity, unaccountability, duplication, arbitrary decisions and major confusion.

As such, the report concludes the ILF should close.

I agree.

But…

In closing the ILF, there are a number of points and principles which must be observed, and that at a minimum are:

  • Any transition from ILF to other funded support should be slow and steady. (In the 3 years since DWP announced the closure of the ILF in 2015, I think very little activity could be detected)
  • The money people received through ILF should be protected, and most definitely shouldn’t be swallowed up by local authority budgets
  • The better parts of the ILF (such as a national, portable system) should influence the new location of the money, rather than these being lost.

The world since Henwood and Hudson wrote their report has changed, not least in the considerable cuts we are seeing in social care and the wider health and welfare reforms. But shifting the principles and support of the ILF into the main provision of social care is still the best thing to do, as long as the minimum points above are met.

The DWP’s original attempt at closing the ILF clearly didn’t do this; the motivation was instead to cut money, and the court of appeal has rightly picked them up on it.

Now, though, there is a chance to look again at this properly. Hopefully the DWP will do this, and do it:

  1. With people from the Department of Health working on the Care Bill and the Integration Transformation Fund
  2. With people driving the personalisation of health and social care
  3. Most importantly, with the people who will be affected by the change.

Update: the full court of appeal judgment is here. It indeed uses the Public Sector Equality Duty as the basis of quashing the original decision.

Advertisement

WiltshireCIL: a #dpulo following local people’s prioirities

WiltshireCIL was supported through the Facilitation Fund of the Strengthening DPULOs Programme to explore the issues local disabled people wanted to focus on, and so enhance their sustainability. Below, Clare Evans – the Chair of WiltshireCIL – shares some reflections on their recent work.

The best thing about a strengthening DPULO grant is that you can apply for funding to meet disabled peoples’ agenda and not have to fit into funders’ agenda.

WiltshireCIL got a grant to reach more disabled people by involving members as volunteers in meeting the needs of others.

We started by inviting any disabled people from our mailing list of several hundred to come and discuss how the project should develop.

Four areas came up as priorities:

  • Informing disabled people about social policy to enable them to influence it
  • To provide disabled people with learning IT opportunities
  • Investigating how to assist self funders on social care
  • Supporting disabled people influence locally and gain skills targeting Salisbury area of Wiltshire

As we draw to the end of our year long project we can see that some areas have been followed through successfully while others not so.

First the “not so” ones! We advertised widely an opportunity to learn IT skills from scratch and had 5 people enrol but only 2 finished the 4 sessions and there’s been no demand for more despite extensive advertising. It’s a bit worrying when you know the Welfare Reform changes are based on everyone getting online to fill in forms, but somehow people don’t perceive local organisations as being able to support them with this.

Secondly we had plans with a local access group to develop some sessions in Salisbury but their leader became hospitalised and plans are on hold.

However what did work beyond our expectations was putting on an information session about the Welfare Reform changes – we are now planning our third conference; also similarly for ILF users.  A combination of speakers, presenting the facts clearly and an opportunity to discuss in groups in a safe place has met peoples’ needs though they remain anxious about the future. For self funders, we first contacted those who attended our Self Funders Forum for their ideas and then carried out a survey. We are now producing a signposting guide and Wiltshire Council has asked us to work with them on the issue to ensure we’re both as effective as possible.

We’re in touch with many more disabled people and are building systems to ensure we can publicise ourselves to them and others again.

Look out for the formal evaluation we’re preparing for the spring!

One Month Before Heartbreak: please read one story

Today is the start of One Month Before Heartbreak – a blogswarm to try and raise awareness of the many negative changes that are being made to various disability benefits, particularly Disability Living Allowance.

You can find links to everyone who has posted during One Month Before Heartbreak on the website itself plus some on Benefit Scrounging Scum. You can also follow all posts and debate about it using the Twitter hashtag #ombh.

I know that not everyone reads about disability-related issues.

This could be because you have an own area of interest that is facing cuts of its own.

It could be because disability doesn’t affect you or someone you know.

Or it could be (and it’s understandable) that you don’t feel as comfortable talking about issues relating to disability.

But if I may, I’m asking that today or this weekend you read just one story – any story – of the people who are posting about the impact the cuts to disability-related support they receive will have on their day-to-day lives.

For my own part, I don’t tend to focus on my own mental health condition. Instead, I crunch the policy, the numbers and the implications and see where it gets us to. For Disability Living Allowance, the Independent Living Fund and Access to Work, this is what I’ve done, and the posts are below. I’m afraid it’s a bit of a “greatest hits” / “bargain basement” contribution, but I wanted to support One Month Before Heartbreak.

On Disability Living Allowance:

On ILF:

On Access to Work:

ILF announcement couldn’t be timed any worse

(Note: This is a personal post)

As an aside to today’s announcement that the ILF is to be closed from 2015 onwards, it’s worth pointing out the timing couldn’t be any worse, because today is the day that the Right to Control is launched in Trailblazers across the country.

(It’s also the day on which the government has announced that those organisations which will most likely become responsible for ILF users post-2015 – local Councils – have had an average of 4.4% taken from their budgets.)

The Right to Control is a new legal right that gives disabled people more choice and control over the services they receive.

Amongst many other services, one of these is, erm, the Independent Living Fund.

Despite the fact the ILF change won’t happen until 2015 and that the Right to Control maintains eligibility criteria for all funding streams (meaning that only current ILF users could benefit), making the announcement that the ILF is to close today risks hugely undermining what is actually a very good project.

I’ve been closely involved in the development of the Trailblazer (news of today’s launch available on my employer’s website here). Throughout this development, the uncertainty floating around about the ILF has added complexity into what is already a complicated (but deliverable) project. With this announcement, the government will replace uncertainty with anxiety and worry. And whilst that exists, it’s highly likely the people affected won’t feel enabled or empowered to take up the choice and control the Right to Control offers.

As I implied in my earlier post, what the government says on disability is very different to what it does.

(For more information on the Right to Control, please see my series of posts here.)

Independent Living Fund to close (updated)

Independent Living FundA Written Ministerial Statement is being published today. It states that the Independent Living Fund (ILF) will be closed in 2015 (link to follow once it’s on the Parliament website).

This has been coming (and it appears the Sundar Mirror yesterday was right). I blogged back in June that the ILF was essentially closed for business.

But that doesn’t make today less of a shock. Others will highlight what a disaster this will be for the 21,000 ILF recipients, for the simple fact that it is. When taken in combination with the proposed changes to Disability Living Allowance, it’s nothing short of an out-and-out attack on disabled people.

And to know who we’re talking about here, note that the ILF delivers financial support to disabled people in order to advance standards of independent living. In order to access ILF, an individual must already get at least £340pw support from a Council and get the higher rate care component of Disability Living Allowance, as well as have less than £23k in savings/capital.

This means that ILF is focused on those people with some of the highest and most complex support needs there are.

Even when it had significant reputation problems in this area, the government can’t speak with any sort of credibility on the topic of disability equality any more.

What the government says on disability issues is a world away from the reality of its actions.

(As an aside I understand in the Written Statement the government has said it will hold a consultation “next year” to determine what will happen to the existing users on ILF post-2015. That’s a number of months for ILF recipients to worry, without even having the opportunity to have their say on the cut. It also gives the impression that the government’s overriding concern is to simply save the ILF’s £359m budget, and even then from 2015 onwards.)

Update to come later when I have more information. Update (7pm): The statement is now available from the ILF website. As I wrote earlier, it confirms the ILF won’t exist past 2015 and the existing ILF users cannot be assured of receiving the level of support they currently get post-2015.

In the same breath as saying the government is committed to disability equality and choice and control for disabled people, the statement says that ILF is “discretionary” and is “financially unsustainable”.

Instead, support for people with some of the highest and most complex impairments will most likely to be left to that well-known abundance of public money, local government.

ILF announcement couldn’t be timed any worse

(Note: This is a personal post)

As an aside to today’s announcement that the ILF is to be closed from 2015 onwards, it’s worth pointing out the timing couldn’t be any worse, because today is the day that the Right to Control is launched in Trailblazers across the country.

(It’s also the day on which the government has announced that those organisations which will most likely become responsible for ILF users post-2015 – local Councils – have had an average of 4.4% taken from their budgets.)

The Right to Control is a new legal right that gives disabled people more choice and control over the services they receive.

Amongst many other services, one of these is, erm, the Independent Living Fund.

Despite the fact the ILF change won’t happen until 2015 and that the Right to Control maintains eligibility criteria for all funding streams (meaning that only current ILF users could benefit), making the announcement that the ILF is to close today risks hugely undermining what is actually a very good project.

I’ve been closely involved in the development of the Trailblazer (news of today’s launch available on my employer’s website here). Throughout this development, the uncertainty floating around about the ILF has added complexity into what is already a complicated (but deliverable) project. With this announcement, the government will replace uncertainty with anxiety and worry. And whilst that exists, it’s highly likely the people affected won’t feel enabled or empowered to take up the choice and control the Right to Control offers.

As I implied in my earlier post, what the government says on disability is very different to what it does.

(For more information on the Right to Control, please see my series of posts here.)

Independent Living Fund (ILF) to close (updated)

Independent Living FundA Written Ministerial Statement is being published today. It states that the Independent Living Fund (ILF) will be closed in 2015 (link to follow once it’s on the Parliament website).

This has been coming (and it appears the Sundar Mirror yesterday was right). I blogged back in June that the ILF was essentially closed for business.

But that doesn’t make today less of a shock. Others will highlight what a disaster this will be for the 21,000 ILF recipients, for the simple fact that it is. When taken in combination with the proposed changes to Disability Living Allowance, it’s nothing short of an out-and-out attack on disabled people.

And to know who we’re talking about here, note that the ILF delivers financial support to disabled people in order to advance standards of independent living. In order to access ILF, an individual must already get at least £340pw support from a Council and get the higher rate care component of Disability Living Allowance, as well as have less than £23k in savings/capital.

This means that ILF is focused on those people with some of the highest and most complex support needs there are.

Even when it had significant reputation problems in this area, the government can’t speak with any sort of credibility on the topic of disability equality any more.

What the government says on disability issues is a world away from the reality of its actions.

(As an aside I understand in the Written Statement the government has said it will hold a consultation “next year” to determine what will happen to the existing users on ILF post-2015. That’s a number of months for ILF recipients to worry, without even having the opportunity to have their say on the cut. It also gives the impression that the government’s overriding concern is to simply save the ILF’s £359m budget, and even then from 2015 onwards.)

Update to come later when I have more information. Update (7pm): The statement is now available from the ILF website. As I wrote earlier, it confirms the ILF won’t exist past 2015 and the existing ILF users cannot be assured of receiving the level of support they currently get post-2015.

In the same breath as saying the government is committed to disability equality and choice and control for disabled people, the statement says that ILF is “discretionary” and is “financially unsustainable”.

Instead, support for people with some of the highest and most complex impairments will most likely to be left to that well-known abundance of public money, local government.

Independent Living Fund essentially closed for business

The Independent Living Fund (ILF) – which provides financial support to disabled people with high support needs to support the cost of their personal assistance, and is separate to social care funding – is essentially closed for business. It’s shut.

Due to budget restrictions, the ILF first said that it would only support ILF applications from disabled people working over 16 hours a week. Before this decision, there was no such requirement, which in itself is self-evidently nonsense given some 50% of disabled people are not in work.

Second, and far more damagingly, the ILF has now said that it will not be accepting any new applications for the rest of this financial year, i.e. until at least April 2011. Furthermore, it will only fund those people who it has already made offers to this year, suggesting that anyone currently in the process of applying for ILF will not be able to receive it.

The potential problems these decisions give rise to are significant. As the ILF’s own equality impact assessment of the decisions notes:

Giving priority to people who are in paid employment of at least 16 hours a week has the potential to adversely affect people in terms of race, gender and age. Disabled people who are from ethnic minority communities, women and young are less likely to be in paid employment. People with learning disabilities are also less likely to be in paid employment.

By giving priority to people who are in paid employment ILF will no longer normally accept applications from people in receipt of Income Support and similar benefits. Therefore the change is also likely to adversely affect people who are at a socio-economic disadvantage.

The costs of meeting the social care needs of disabled people who previously could have applied for the ILF will instead fall to those well-known cash-rich organisations, local authorities.

Overall, these decisions are very far from good news for disabled people.

I happen to know some of the Trustees of the Independent Living Fund, and I understand the huge difficulty they have faced. Unfortunately, their overriding responsibility is to not commit more public money than the Fund has available.

Thus, when the axe swings via the coalition government’s Budget on Tuesday, just remember that this is the sort of thing it results in.

It’s not efficiencies. It’s not bloated public spending. It’s disabled people not being supported to meet the most basic elements of day-to-day life – getting out of bed, making a cup of tea, or going to the supermarket.