Demystifying ISFsDr Simon Duffy of The Centre for Welfare Reform

• An Individual Service Fund (ISF) is a way organisations can make themselves accountable.

• It is NOT a contract - but it may require more flexible contracting by commissioners.

• Ultimately the ISF is just a first step for service providers.

• What really matters is whether the service provider can offer Flexible Support.

TLAP is about to publish guidance on use of ISFs.

Core message is…

If direct payments are not suitable then the next option

should be to contract a provider to provide

Flexible Support

Where did ISFs come from?• ISFs began at Inclusion Glasgow in 1996.

• They were used as part of radical de-institutionalisation process - ‘one person at a time for full citizenship.’

• They were included in the model of self-directed support model published by In Control in 2003.

• Use is very low (1% of total spend) and often poorly implemented (e.g. support plan as part of contract).

Do ISFs matter?

• ISFs are just a tool for accountability between the individual and the service provider.

• They are only a first step in providing more Flexible Support.

• On their own they are almost meaningless.

Evidence is limited, but• Individual Service Funds by Animate reviewed

success of early work in Glasgow by Inclusion.

• Better Lives by Ellis, Sines and Hoggard reviewed recent large scale change in Southwark by Choice Support.

• Personalised Support by Fitzpatrick described the work of Partners for Inclusion using ISFs.

• Other research is consistent, if on small scale.

bit.ly/IndividualServiceFunds

Download the report:

• Better outcomes, lower costs - over time

• Highly flexible and creative support

• Stronger community involvement

• Multiple forms of support

• Inspired by - not by personalisation - but inclusion

What we learn

bit.ly/BetterLives

Download the report:

• Better outcomes, lower costs - over time

• Limits on social work involvement important

• Provider led planning and budgeting

• Increasing family involvement

• Positive for people and for professionals

What we learn

bit.ly/personalised-support

Download the report:

• Good support needs to fit the individual

• You really need to pay attention, planning with people, families and professionals matters

• The proper goal is citizenship

• Creativity comes from people, not processes or standardised formulae

What we learn

What is Flexible Support?

1.Accountable

2.Individualised

3.Creative

4. A partnership

5.For citizenship

Flexible Support is

AccountableYou work for me

IndividualisedSupport fits my life

CreativeThings can change

Beware of standardised planning processes

PartnershipWe’re working together

CitizenshipTaking my place

Commissioning Flexible Support offers the next best

attractive option where direct payments are not

suitable or desirable.

But the big barrier to Flexible Support is the failure in trust between

‘providers’ and commissioners

There’s only one trick for trust - try it

Things to clarify

• Do contracts allow providers to work flexibly?

• Is Flexible Support available if someone doesn’t want a direct payment?

• Does the assessment process allow for the option of Flexible Support?

• Who can offer Flexible Support?

• Is Flexible Support a form of brokerage?

What should we do next?

• Do we know why people and families pick it? Is it value of peer support, supervision and wider network?

• Provider choice is reducing under current contracting arrangements. Is block contracting, procurement and tendering the problem?

• Is it time to undermine current resource allocation processes? Work in partnership with providers instead.

• Is there a shift away from the concept of ‘service providers’ and growing focus on community support?

• Do we need to build on leadership with the vision?

• Where are the good partnerships?

• Different options are available from innovative Independent Living Centres and brokerage agencies.

• Would facilitation help - broker deals - practically focused? Focused on certain areas.

• Focus on the outcomes - supporting people who are ‘getting away with it’

• How are councils talking to themselves?

• How do we change expectations for people and for service providers?

• Focus on the service providers and social workers - rather than commissioners?

• Different forms of security may be an incentive for (some) providers - continuity and the end of block contracts and fear of re-tendering.

• What motivates the providers?