This report provides a qualitative assessment of the experiences of the closure of the Independent Living Fund in England.
Summary of findings
The Independent Living Fund (ILF) was set up in 1988 to provide financial support to disabled people with high support needs. It was permanently closed in June 2015 and the responsibility for supporting ILF recipients in England was passed to local authorities (LAs). The aim of the study was to provide a qualitative assessment of the experiences of the closure in England, as perceived by former recipients and LA staff.
Former recipient views and experiences of the ILF closure ultimately hinged on their new arrangements under the LA. Those that were awarded improved, matched, or a small reduction in their care and support package had maintained the level of support and care they received prior to the closure, as well as a similar level of choice and control over their care. They also reported limited or no changes to their independence.
Those with a heavily reduced award experienced multiple changes as a result. They argued that reductions in care were unfair and denied them opportunities to participate fully in society. They encountered changes and restrictions to daily activities, including less support for engaging in leisure activities, work and volunteering. LAs found that face-to- face meetings with former recipients and their next of kin to sensitively discuss alternative provisions, changes and reductions to care, helped to mediate these difficult decisions.
It was the period of the uncertainty about whether the ILF would close that generated fear and anxiety among former recipients, which continued until they were notified of their new arrangements. Anxieties centred on what the new LA arrangements would be and whether all their care needs would be met. The ILF closure brought about wider concerns about the social care system, regardless of the new arrangements, and was felt even by those with improved and matched packages. Former recipients felt vulnerable to future reductions to funded care and support.
While ILF communications about the closure were reported to be clear and frequent, satisfaction with LA communications varied. Former recipients experienced different transitional journeys dependent on the approach taken by their LA. LAs that appointed a dedicated delivery team facilitated a smooth transition. Inclusion of project staff with
prior knowledge of the ILF aided their understanding of the potential sensitivities involved in the transition. Collaborative working with the ILF was felt to provide LAs with a better understanding of former recipient needs.
The findings suggest that poor experiences of the transition in particular LAs could have potentially been improved by better communications about how and when the new arrangements would be decided. Future anxiety related to annual reassessments might likewise be mitigated by similar improvements. Having high quality staff that were
experienced and showed sensitivity about an individual’s circumstances facilitated a positive transition journey. The smooth monetary transfer was considered a successful aspect of the transition. However, LA staff suggested that a concrete measure of success of the transition would be gained at the next scheduled care reviews.