between Independent Living Fund (ILF) ScotlandandScottish Local Authorities
1. Document Control
Current Version number
00.7
Title
Data Sharing Agreement for Independent Living
Summary
An official Agreement between the Independent Living Fund Scotland and Scottish Local Authorities. This Agreement takes account of the regular and routine sharing of personal data relating to Applicants for / Recipients of ILF Scotland funding between the parties to this Agreement.
Date
<<Insert Date>>
Author
Privacy and Improvement Manager
Owner
Director of Digital and Information Services
Version Control
Date
Version
Summary of Changes
Author
09/12/2021
v00.1
Working Draft
Marianne Craig
15/02/2024
v00.2
Comments & corrections
Laura Earley
23/01/2023
v00.4
Formatting changes
Laura Earley
14/02/2023
v00.5
Comments & corrections
CLO
15/02/2023
v00.6
Formatting changes & corrections
Laura Earley
26/03/2024
v00.7
Working Draft & changes to data sharing approach
Laura Earley / Paul Hayllor
2. Interpretation of Terms Used in This Agreement
Term or expression
Definition
Agreed Purpose
has the meaning given to it in paragraph 5
Agreement
means this data sharing Agreement
Applicant
means an individual applying to receive an ILF Scotland Award
Award Manager
means an individual made responsible by the Recipient for managing an ILF Scotland award, whether by choice or by virtue of reduced capacity in relation to an impairment
Controller
shall have the meaning given in the UK GDPR
Data Loss Event
means any event that results, or may result in unauthorised access to Personal Data held under or in connection with this Agreement, and / or actual or potential loss and / or destruction and / or corruption of Personal Data in breach of this Agreement, including but not limited to any Personal Data Breach
Data Protection Legislation
means (i) the UK GDPR and any applicable national implementing laws as amended from time to time; (ii) the Data Protection Act 2018 to the extent that it relates to the Processing of Personal Data and privacy; and (iii) any other law in force from time to time with regards to the processing of Personal Data and privacy, which may apply to either party in respect of its activities under the Agreement
Data Subject
shall have the meaning given in the UK GDPR
Data Subject Request
means a request made by, or on behalf of, a Data Subject in accordance with access and other rights granted to the Data Subject pursuant to the Data Protection legislation in respect of their Personal Data
GDPR
means the UK General Data Protection Regulation
ILF Scotland Award
means funding from ILF Scotland awarded to a Recipient
Information Commissioner’s Office
means the United Kingdom’s Supervisory Authority
Personal Data
shall have the meaning given in the UK GDPR Processed by either party in connection with this Agreement
Personal Data Breach
shall have the meaning given in the UK GDPR
Process
shall have the meaning given in the UK GDPR and Processing shall be construed accordingly
PSN
means a Public Service Network which is an assured network used by the public sector to securely share data
Recipient
means an individual receiving an ILF Scotland Award
Scottish Local Authority
means a public body incorporated under the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994
3. Parties to the Agreement, Roles, Scope and Purpose of the Agreement
This Agreement has been prepared to support the regular and routine sharing of data between:
Legal name of parties to the Agreement & Head Office address
Role for the purposes of the Data Protection Legislation e.g. Controller / Processor
Independent Living Fund Scotland Limited, a company limited by guarantee registered in Scotland (Company Number SC500075) and having its registered office at St Andrews House, Edinburgh, EH1 3DG
Controller
[Insert Local Authority], a local authority incorporated under the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 and having its head office at [insert office address]
Controller
The above are hereafter referred to as the parties.
3.1. Role of the Parties as Controllers
The parties acknowledge that for the purposes of the Data Protection Legislation, each party is a Controller in its own right in respect of the processing of Personal Data on its own behalf and in particular:
ILF Scotland shall be a Controller where it is processing Personal Data in relation to ensuring the effective management and administration of ILF Scotland funding generally.
The Local Authority shall be a Controller where it is processing Personal Data in relation to supporting an Application for / Recipient of ILF Scotland funding.
Each party shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations (as amended from time to time) in relation to the performance of this Agreement, in particular each party shall:
in relation to the processing of Personal Data, comply with its obligations as a Controller under the current Data Protection Legislation; and
comply with other sector specific legislation including the Equality Act 2010 and the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Act 2007.
3.2 Scope of the Agreement
This Agreement takes account of the sharing of legitimate and proportionate information relating to the social care provision for new Applicants and / or Recipients of ILF Scotland funding. The information will be shared between ILF Scotland staff within the Self-Directed Support Teams and Social Work or Occupational Health professionals within the Scottish Local Authority.
3.3 Purpose of the Agreement
This Agreement will commence on [INSERT DATE] and shall continue in force until terminated in accordance with paragraph 15 below.
The aim of this Agreement is to:
facilitate the sharing between the parties of financial information and Personal Data relating to each Applicant / Recipient, to enable the administration and management of the ILF Scotland Award(s) for which the Local Authority provides support to an Applicant / Recipient or an Award Manager managing an award on behalf of a Recipient; and put in place a framework which will allow this Personal Data to be exchanged in ways which respect the rights and freedoms of individuals and in compliance with the law.
4. Description of the Data to be Shared
The following table sets out the personal data categories which can be shared between the parties:
Data Category
Controller(s)
the Applicant / Recipient’s full namefinancial details of the Applicant / Recipient’s ILF Scotland Awardthe Applicant or Recipient’s contributionsthe case reference numberpostal addressNational Insurance Numberdate of birthname and contact information for Managers of award funding where a Recipient does not manage their own fundingdetails of conversations held between Award Managers, Recipients and ILF Scotland Assessorsdetails of health and physical disabilities, including medical diagnoses (from a third-party healthcare professional) which may require changes in funding provision
ILF Scotland
the Applicant / Recipient’s full namedetails of any funding made to the Applicant / Recipient by the Local Authoritydetails relating to the Applicant / Recipient’s support needs, assessment and support plandetails of conversations held between Award Managers, Recipients and Social Work Professionalsdetails of health and physical disabilities, including medical diagnoses (from a third-party healthcare professional) which may require changes in funding provision
Local Authority
5. Description of the Purpose(s) of the Sharing
The parties consider the sharing of this data to be necessary to meet the aims outlined in section 2.1 above. The sharing will benefit the individuals applying for / in receipt of an ILF Scotland Award by aiding the effective management of such ILF Scotland Award and will benefit society by aiding the proper administration of public funds.
Personal Data is shared by the parties pursuant to this Agreement for the following purposes, to allow the parties:
to establish the identity of data subjects within a Local Authority who are applying for / in receipt of ILF Scotland funding
to ensure the correct identity of the Applicant / Recipient
to offer increased safeguarding for the Applicant / Recipient
to ensure the additionality of ILF Scotland funding
to ensure the Applicant / Recipient is utilising the funds received effectively
to ensure ILF Scotland Awards are maintained and managed appropriately and efficiently
to identify whether the Applicant / Recipient is receiving agreed hours of support
to identify financial hardship;
to ensure effective communication and implementation of any changes to the ILF Scotland Awards
(all points listed above are taken to be the Agreed Purpose).
Personal Data shall only be shared for the Agreed Purpose, and the parties shall not process Personal Data in a way that is incompatible with the Agreed Purpose.
6. Data Accuracy Assurance
The parties have a responsibility to check the quality and accuracy of the financial information and Personal Data which they hold, with particular emphasis on checking the accuracy and quality of data to be shared.
Each party undertakes to notify the other as soon as practicable if an error is discovered in, or changes are made to, the financial information or Personal Data which has been provided to the other party to ensure that the parties are then able to correct or update their respective records.
7. Lawful Bases for Processing
Without detriment to any other lawful basis that may be applicable, the following are the core legal bases for each of the parties to process Personal Data shared in line with this Agreement:
Party
GDPR Article 6 Condition(s) Personal Data
GDPR Article 9 Condition(s)Special Categories of Personal Data
ILF Scotland
6(1)(b) – Processing is necessary for the performance of a contract to which the Data Subject (the Applicant / Recipient) is party, or in order to take steps at the request of the Data Subject prior to entering into a contract.
9(2)(h) – Processing is necessary for the purposes of the provision of health or social care or treatment or management of health or social care systems and services on the basis of Union or Member State law.
Local Authority
6(1)(e) – the processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller.
8. Data Security and Loss Management
8.1 Security
Each party shall ensure that it has in place throughout the term of this Agreement appropriate technical and organisational measures to protect against a Data Loss Event, having taken account of (i) the nature of the Personal Data (and that personal data potentially includes Special Category Data) to be protected, (ii) the harm that might result from a Data Loss Event; (iii) the state of technological development; and (iv) the cost of implementing any measures to mitigate against the occurrence of a Data Loss Event.
The primary means of data transfer will be by the secure LA portal which is managed by ILF Scotland. Each Local Authority Social Worker making an application on behalf of a data subject will have a secure login to the system supported by multifactor authentication prior to allowing them to access the applications portal. This is the same portal that is used currently to confirm the details of the Care Schedule and meets the security requirements of both Scottish Government and the Local Authority Digital Office. This is now in full use across all local authorities in Scotland and should be considered as the primary secure data sharing platform.
Both parties shall ensure that there is either (i) a fully secured and encrypted email system in place for the exchange of Personal Data or Special Category Data as foreseen by this Agreement, or (ii) an alternative secure method for the exchange of information agreed between the parties, which might include telephone If the Local Authority does not have appropriate encryption measures in place on its email servers, ILF Scotland will arrange for an alternative secure system such as Huddle to be used to enable secure and restricted access to data for designated individuals within Local Authority Offices.
8.2 Data Loss
Each party will ensure that the other party is notified of any Data Loss Event, or significant data security risks, affecting shared Personal Data within 24 hours of becoming aware of the same.
The parties will, where appropriate, work together to rectify any such Data Loss Event or mitigate any such risk to data security, including notification to the Information Commissioner’s Office and to affected individuals if required.
9. Transparency
Both parties will clearly inform Data Subjects about how their Personal Data will be processed in connection with the Agreed Purpose in a concise, transparent, intelligible and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language.
10. Retention and Deletion
During the terms of this Agreement, within one (1) month following the date of the cessation of an ILF Scotland Award pursuant to or in connection with which the sharing of Personal Data by the parties was undertaken, each party shall:
securely delete or securely return all Personal Data provided to it by the other party pursuant to this Agreement (and any copies of it) in relation to that ILF Scotland Award; and
certify in writing to the other that, to the best of its knowledge and belief, all such Personal Data (and any copies of it) have been securely deleted or securely returned, unless the party is required by law to retain the data.
In either case, if a party is required by law to retain any Personal Data, that party shall advise the other in writing of such requirement.
11. Rights of the Data Subject
Where either party receives a Data Subject Request, it shall be responsible for actioning the same in accordance with the Data Protection Legislation.
The parties each agree to provide such assistance as is reasonably required to enable the other party to comply with Data Subject Requests relating to the Agreed Purpose within the time limits imposed by the Data Protection Legislation.
12. Freedom of Information
All parties are subject to the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 and the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 and / or any other codes or regulations applicable from time to time relating to access to public authorities’ information (FOI).
All parties agree to provide reasonable cooperation, upon written request, to enable any party to comply with its obligations under or in relation to FOI or FOISA.
The final decision on disclosure of any information under FOI or FOISA will be made by the organisation to which the request was directly made.
13. International Transfers of Data
All parties agree that in the event that Personal Data pursuant to this Agreement is required to be transferred outside of the UK, all other parties shall be notified in writing and ensure that any such transfer complies with the Data Protection Legislation.
14. Data Sharing Approach
The primary data sharing approach will be via the secure applications portal and thereafter via email, letter and / or in-person / telephone conversations. All data collected in this way will then be imported and stored in secure database systems which will only be accessible to approved personnel on a need-to-know basis only. This secure database will subsequently be used to push email notifications to the approved local authority personnel to notify them of updates and confirmation requirements of new care packages and request them to log in to the portal to review and approve new updates. The intention behind this is to reduce and limit the sharing of personal data in transit with as much as possible being completed in the LA Portal. Any data shared via email must use fully encrypted public sector networks and be minimised as much as possible by both parties. ILF Scotland has access to separate secure file sharing tools and these can be used on specific cases by exception if required but would be discussed separately (Huddle is the secure system).
Agreement
15. Termination of Agreement
This Data Sharing Agreement will terminate upon the date of cessation of all Recipients of ILF Funding Awards, unless terminated earlier by either party by serving not less than three (3) months’ notice in writing to the other party.
This Agreement will be reviewed every five years or sooner if appropriate.
16. Governing Law
This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with Scots law and both parties hereby irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Scottish Courts.
Social Return on Investment (SROI) Evaluation - Northern Ireland
Social Return on Investment (SROI) Evaluation - Northern Ireland
February 2024
Sponsored by the ILF Scotland Stakeholder Group in Northern Ireland and the Advisory Group in Scotland.
1.0 Introduction
448 people in Northern Ireland (NI) received a combined total of £6.85 million from the Independent Living Fund (ILF) in the financial year 2018/19. A Social Return on Investment (SROI) study in 2019 1 found that for each £1 distributed in NI by ILF in 2018/19, £10.89 was generated in social value. The stakeholders benefitting were, Recipients, Personal Assistants (PAs) Health & Social Care Trusts, Families and informal carers and the Independent Living Movement.
Impact for recipients was derived through five outcomes:
Emotional well being
Health maintenance
Sustaining natural support
Personal development
Living independently
2.0 Aim
An update of the study to measure the extent the SROI sustained in the subsequent four years was commissioned by the NI Stakeholder Group in the summer of 2023.
3.0 Method
Existing 2019 data was reviewed and determined to remain accurate for use in the current analysis.
Six personal story interviews were undertaken with one new and three previous (2019) contributors, and two new Award Managers who are also members of the NI Stakeholder Group.
The financial proxies used in the 2019 study were then reviewed based on relevance and accuracy in line with policy and inflationary changes in the subsequent four-year period
4.0 Findings
349 people in Northern Ireland received £6.85 million from the Independent Living Fund (ILF) in the financial year 2022-23. The consultations with recipients, carers, award managers, and the NI Stakeholder Group, evidence that outcomes accrued for stakeholders in the 2019 study have been sustained and in some cases have been enhanced in the subsequent period.
The combined influence of emotional wellbeing, health maintenance, sustaining natural support and ‘getting on with life’ continues to demonstrate a clear preventative effect as recipients are better positioned to manage and overcome challenges they encounter in daily life.
Recipients felt in control of their lives and could stay connected with family, friends, and their community. In cases where they were living with their parents, they used the fund to socialise, volunteer and pursue further education. This provided respite for parents and made the recipient feel independent and in no way a burden on their parents, family, and friends.
“Getting out and volunteering which the fund helps me with makes me feel less dependent on family and friends and this helps me maintain good relationships with my nearest and dearest”.
All appreciated the flexibility of ILF and gained confidence and belief from being able to manage the fund. Recipients referenced the health and wellbeing benefits from using the fund.
“It improves my quality of life, mental health, makes me happy and independent. My PA accompanies me to go swimming, go on forest walks, go shopping, get my make-up and nails done, help me to choose outfits and attend hospital appointments”.
One recipient in receipt of ILF since aged 18, reflected on how the fund had enabled him to live a fulfilling adult life. The fund facilitated a journey of learning to be independent and increased ambition about what could be achieved in life.
A recipient who recently completed a master’s degree in international business felt that this would not have been possible without ILF as they were able to use it to assist with exam preparation, course work and assignments both at home and on-campus. With the qualification secured, the recipient is now using the fund to assist with job searching and interview preparation and attendance.
“ILF enabled me to think about what is possible…I did a master’s degree which I couldn’t have done it without ILF, It set me up to succeed”
One recipient is active in lobbying and campaigning for disabled people rights and supports for independent living and is a highly respected influencer in this area. Being able to attend meetings and events means he can teach others about independent living, act as a role model and use his experience and expertise to influence policy on disability.
Despite the challenges presented by Covid 19, interview feedback from the recipients and award managers indicated that access to the fund was a critical enabler particularly for health maintenance and resilience throughout the pandemic. Those interviewed emphasised the competence, reliability, and loyalty of their PAs who worked effectively to ensure all public health guidelines were adhered to, referencing their contribution as "truly lifesaving".
Additional funding was available to meet costs associated with the pandemic to ensure PAs who had to self-isolate could receive their full salary while on leave, employment of additional staff while PAs were self-isolating, and for Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). Furthermore those interviewed referred to the empathy, understanding and flexibility experienced in their correspondence with ILF during this unprecedented period. One recipient was able to use the fund to mitigate boredom and remain mentally stimulated during lockdown.
“ILF were great during Covid, they allowed me to use it for creative arts projects and pay a curator to give me ideas, it kept me stimulated and improved my wellbeing”.
The inflexibility of statutory care packages and to some extent Direct Payments and how this compares with the impact of ILF was a recurring theme throughout the consultation.
“Trust care packages helped me to survive, Direct Payments let me live; the Independent Living Fund gives me a life a worth living”
4.1 SROI Results
ILF through its £6.85 million allocation to recipients in 2022/23 generated a social value of £1: £13. This is based on a Total Present Value of £89,109,708 created against the input of £6,850,000. The social value generated by ILF for stakeholders demonstrates extended impact and value for money. The calculations applied financial proxies to twenty-one outcomes (See Appendix 1) for five material stakeholder groups evidenced through the primary and secondary research. Value accrued per stakeholder is segmented in Table 1.
Table 1: Social Value by Stakeholder
Recipients: 80% HSCT's: 16% Personal Assistants: 2% Family / Carers: 1% Northern Ireland Civic Society: 1% Total: 100%
It is necessary to discount the values generated by each of the financial proxies used to reduce the risk of over claiming. While there is a likelihood that through Self Directed Support some of the health and well-being outcomes may have been achieved, it is evident from current statutory funding levels and policy priorities that equivalent levels of funding to the ILF allocation to support independent living in the community would not have been made available. We have therefore attributed low levels of deadweight 2 (5-10%) to the calculations.
There is no robust evidence base emerging that ILF has displaced domiciliary or homebased services rather the contrary. It has strengthened existing assistance requirements based on independent living principles. Reduced isolation, improved relationships, and increased capacity to contribute to their local community and civic society were among recipient outcomes reported in 2019 & 2023.
In the absence of ILIF there would not have been sufficient community or voluntary services or inputs from family to achieve equivalent outcomes for recipients. The SROI ratio is calculated over five years to reflect the longer-term impacts for stakeholders if the fund was no longer available. Given the complex needs of many recipients the drop off in impact would be in the range of 20-50% in years 2-5.
4.2 Sensitivity Analysis
As the SROI analysis contains estimations and assumptions, it is prudent to review where these decisions have had a significant effect on the overall SROI calculation and to consider, therefore, the assurance that can be placed on such figures. As an evaluative analysis, the study contains confirmed data regarding ILF funded outputs. The research makes extrapolated assumptions on the numbers impacted based on the data collated in 2019 and 2023 through the desk top review process and the mixed method consultations with participants, employers, and stakeholders.
The sensitivity analysis explores the impact on the SROI ratio of changing some of the study’s key assumptions. Discount rates thought to be significant were amended to clarify the impact of changing attribution, deadweight, or displacement. Outcome values were also adjusted. This sensitivity analysis did not significantly alter the final calculations which are considered assured.
5.0 Summary
The numbers in receipt of ILF in NI have decreased by 99 from 448 in 2019 to 349 in 2023 due to natural causes. Despite this, the social value accrued from ILF has increased from £1:10.89 to £1:13 which means that the fund’s overall impact for stakeholders has increased by 20%. Recipients were the main benefactors with their overall share of the social value accrued increasing from 77% in 2019 to 80% in 2023. This has been achieved against the backdrop of an ageing ILF cohort, increasing operational and inflationary pressures on public services, and the unprecedented Covid-19 pandemic.
Appendix 1
Financial Proxies and sources used for the SROI calculations:
Relief from depression/anxiety (£40,442) HACT Social Value Bank
Sustaining full time employment (£14,433) HACT Social Value Bank
Belonging to a social group (£1,850) HACT Social Value Bank
Increased frequency of interaction with friends, relatives & neighbours- £7,750
Value of lives saved (£1,553,653) Microsoft Word - pl2-eco (health-ni.gov.uk)
Feeling in control of life (£15,894) HACT Social Value Bank
1 Undertaken by the Centre for Independent Living Northern Ireland & Gauge Impact. 2 Deadweight is an estimation of the value that would have been created if ILF was not available to recipients.
Social Return on Investment (SROI) Evaluation - Scotland
Social Return on Investment (SROI) Evaluation - Scotland
February 2024
Sponsored by the ILF Scotland Stakeholder Group in Northern Ireland and the Advisory Group in Scotland.
1.0 Introduction
Social Return on Investment (SROI) studies on the Independent Living Fund (ILF) in Northern Ireland (NI) in 2019 1 and 2023 2 found that for each £1 spent £10.89 and £13 respectively was generated in social value. The stakeholders identified were Recipients, Personal Assistants (PAs) Health & Social Care Trusts, Families, informal carers, and NI civic society.
2.0 Aim & Rationale
In August 2023, the potential of replicating the SROI methodology adopted for the ILF NI studies to calculate the social value generated by ILF Scotland was discussed by the ILF Scotland Advisory Group. After a detailed presentation of the ILF NI methodology and an explanation of the caveats and assumptions 3 that would underpin an equivalent study for ILF Scotland, the Advisory Group agreed to proceed. This study therefore represents the final instalment of a trilogy of social impact reports on the ILF in Northern Ireland and Scotland.
3.0 Method
The extent to which the five outcomes below evidenced and valued for NI recipients in the 2019 and 2023 studies were relevant in Scotland was tested during nine semi-structured interviews with ILF Scotland recipients / award managers.
Emotional well being
Health maintenance
Sustaining natural support
Personal development
Living independently
Discussions were facilitated with ILF Scotland to determine the stakeholders for the study. The direct and indirect stakeholders for the ILF NI studies were used as the starting point for the discussions. From this, some differences in the Health & Social Care systems and the administration of ILF in both regions emerged.
The financial proxies used for the ILF NI SROI studies were then reviewed to determine how they could be applied to the ILF Scotland SROI calculations. 18 of the 21 outcomes for the NI studies (See Appendix 1) were sourced from UK wide proxy banks so were material to ILF Scotland. The remaining three outcome proxies were amended to reflect differences in the costs of nursing and residential care, hospital admissions and the minimum wage between Northern Ireland and Scotland.
4.0 Consultation
This section summarises the key findings from the consultations with the nine ILF Scotland recipients, two of whom were award managers. Five have been in receipt of ILF for over 20 years with the others benefitting from the fund for 14,16,17 and 19 years, respectively.
All referenced ILF being an enabler for independent living. This was a combination of getting out of the house to volunteer, socialise with friends, going to the cinema and attending family events. Being able to sustain regular exercise (swimming) and find new hobbies (model aircraft flying) was according to one recipient directly attributable to ILF. With the support of their PA, one recipient was able to use public transport to visit their ageing parents regularly who live relatively close by.
Two of those interviewed are on the boards of voluntary and community organisations and advocate and campaign for disabled people, asylum seekers, and those who are homeless. Both had long and successful careers and having ILF to assist with administration and attending meetings enables them to use their experience and expertise to support marginalised groups and influence national policy on disability and social inclusion.
The health maintenance aspect of ILF was evident throughout. Recipients used the fund to ensure that they were accompanied to hospital, GP, and physio appointments. One of the recipients is employed part time and indicated that it would not be possible to work without ILF. For another, attending the Glasgow School of Art to pursue a qualification in Photography and working with professional photographers who use the facility was made possible by ILF.
Having the confidence to volunteer and present to the City of Edinburgh Council on disability access issues are for one recipient indicators of the personal development outcomes facilitated by ILF. Feeling less dependent on family and friends was for all recipients an important enabler in maintaining healthy equal relationships with those closest to them.
The overarching theme to emerge from the consultation was that all recipients felt in control of their lives with a good balance between socialising, hobbies, education, volunteering, and employment. All appreciated the flexibility of ILF and derived confidence and belief from being able to manage the fund.
When asked to contemplate a scenario where they could no longer avail of the fund or if it was managed through a local authority or Health & Social Care Partnership (HSCP), losing independence and connection with their community was the spontaneous reaction of all recipients. Having to attend some form of daycare or perhaps live in supported or residential facilities was something that none could countenance at this time.
The differences between statutory care packages, Direct Payments and ILF from a lived experience perspective is poignantly captured in the following quotation from one recipient.
“The inflexibility of my care package means that I am up, washed and dressed at 8am daily irrespective of what my wishes are. Day centres are not for me and having ILF means I can structure the day around my voluntary work, attending meetings and catching up on administration. It would be a long boring and empty day without ILF. It gives me a purpose and makes me feel alive.”
5.0 Findings
There are some differences between Northern Ireland and Scotland which are relevant to this study. Firstly the value and reach of ILF is much greater in Scotland (£41,900,690 and 1995 recipients in 2022-23) than Northern Ireland (£6,850,000 and 349 recipients in 2022-23) There are five Health and Social Care Trusts (HSCTs) in Northern Ireland.
In Scotland Health and Social Care is managed by 31 Health and Social Care Partnerships (HSCPs) working towards a set of national health and wellbeing outcomes. All Partnerships are responsible for adult social care, adult primary health care and unscheduled adult hospital care. Many are also responsible for children’s services, homelessness, and criminal justice social work.
Northern Ireland has a more traditional daycare service than Scotland and it was felt by stakeholders that NI has a more established community infrastructure with over 8,000 community groups seeking to support the most vulnerable in society. The remote geography of the Scottish Highlands means that interventions which can reduce isolation and enhance inclusion and connectivity in these areas are valuable assets but can be difficult to service.
The consultations with ILF Scotland recipients/award managers reinforced similar outcomes accruing to those valued for ILF NI recipients in the 2019 and 2023 SROI studies. The combined influence of emotional wellbeing, health maintenance, sustaining natural support and relationships and having the capacity to ‘get on with life’ demonstrate a clear preventative effect as recipients are better positioned to manage and overcome challenges they encounter in daily life.
The feedback from recipients/award managers in both countries in respect of the challenges presented by Covid 19 was unerringly similar. Access to the fund was a critical enabler particularly for health maintenance, resilience, and emotional wellbeing throughout the pandemic. Those interviewed emphasised the competence of their PAs who worked effectively to ensure all public health guidelines were adhered to. When PAs had to self-isolate, ILF was able to meet the furlough costs.
None of the ILF Scotland recipients contracted Covid which meant that they avoided hospitals where the pandemic was most infectious. Those interviewed referred to the empathy, understanding and flexibility experienced in their correspondence with ILF during Covid.
5.1 SROI Results
The social value generated by ILF Scotland for a range of stakeholders demonstrates extended impact and value for money. ILF through its £40.9 million allocation to recipients in 2023 generated a social value of between £1:£12 and £1:£13. This is based on a Total Present Value of £493,329,593 created against the input of £41,900,000. The calculations applied financial proxies to twenty-one outcomes (See Appendix 1) for five material stakeholder groups evidenced through the primary and secondary research.
It is necessary to discount the values generated by each of the financial proxies used to reduce the risk of over claiming. It is evident from current statutory funding levels and policy priorities that equivalent levels of funding to the ILF allocation to support independent living in the community would not have been made available. We have therefore attributed low levels of deadweight 4 (5-10%) to the calculations.
There is no robust evidence base emerging that ILF has displaced other domiciliary or home-based services rather the contrary in that it has strengthened existing assistance and support requirements based on the principles of independent living. Reduced isolation, improved family relationships and increased capacity to contribute to their local community and wider society are among the outcomes reported by participants through their personal stories.
In the absence of ILF there would not have been sufficient community or voluntary services or inputs from family available to achieve similar outcomes for recipients. The SROI ratio is calculated over five years to reflect the longer-term impacts for stakeholders if the fund was no longer available. Given the complex needs of many recipients the drop off in impact would be in the range of 20-50% in years 2-5.
5.2 Sensitivity Analysis
Given that the analysis contains estimations and assumptions, it is prudent to review where these decisions have had a significant effect on the overall SROI calculation and to consider, therefore, the assurance that can be placed on such figures. However, as an evaluative analysis, the Study contains confirmed data regarding ILF funded outputs. The research makes extrapolated assumptions on the numbers impacted based on consultations with ILF Scotland recipients and aggregated data on outcomes from the NI study.
The sensitivity analysis explores the impact on the SROI ratio of changing some of the study’s key assumptions. Discount rates thought to be significant were amended to clarify the impact of changing attribution, deadweight, or displacement. Outcome values generated from research methods were adjusted to determine the impact of changing values, given that consultation results were extrapolated over the full stakeholder group. The sensitivity analysis did not significantly alter the final calculations which are considered assured.
6.0 Summary
Despite the differences in the scale and reach of ILF in Northern Ireland and Scotland, the social value generated by both funds for stakeholders is similar. This demonstrates that irrespective of geography, the core outcomes of emotional wellbeing, health maintenance, sustaining natural support and relationships and feeling independent builds resilience to manage and overcome challenges recipients encounter in daily life.
Appendix 1
Financial Proxies and sources used for the SROI calculations:
Relief from depression/anxiety (£40,442) HACT Social Value Bank
Sustaining full time employment (£14,433) HACT Social Value Bank
Belonging to a social group (£1,850) HACT Social Value Bank
Increased frequency of interaction with friends, relatives & neighbours- £7,750
Value of lives saved (£1,553,653)
Feeling in control of life (£15,894) HACT Social Value Bank
The average cost of residential care in Scotland (£39,656) Standard rates(Care Information Scotland)
Regular volunteering (£3,274) HACT Social Value Bank
Cost of a hospital stay - £483 per day Help with health costs (nhsinform.scot)
1 Undertaken by the Centre for Independent Living Northern Ireland & Gauge Impact. 2 Undertaken by Business Improvement Solutions. 3 (a) Given the small sample size of the ILF Scotland study, the final SROI value would be presented within an indicative value range (See Section 5) (b)The same stakeholders are impacted by ILF in Northern Ireland and Scotland and outcomes for the primary stakeholder (ILF recipients) are similar in both regions. 4 Deadweight is an estimation of the value that would have been created if ILF was not available to recipients.
Created: 26 January 2016 Owner: HR Version: 2.0 Last Amendment Date: January 2022 Next Review Date: July 2024
Policy Statement
1. It is our policy to conduct all of our business in an honest and ethical manner. We take a zero-tolerance approach to bribery and corruption. We are committed to acting professionally, fairly and with integrity in all our business dealings and relationships, wherever we operate, and implementing and enforcing effective systems to counter bribery.
2. We will uphold all laws relevant to countering bribery and corruption and we remain bound by the laws of the UK, including the Bribery Act 2010, in respect of our conduct, both at home and abroad. The purpose of this policy is to:
set out our responsibilities, and of those working for us, in observing and upholding our position on bribery and corruption
provide information and guidance to those working for us on how to recognise and deal with bribery and corruption issues.
3. Bribery and corruption are punishable for individuals by up to ten years' imprisonment. If we are found to have taken part in corruption, the Company could face an unlimited fine, be excluded from tendering for public contracts and face damage to our reputation. Therefore, we take our legal responsibilities very seriously, although we have not identified any particular risks for our business.
4. In this policy, third party means any individual or organisation you come into contact with during the course of your work for us. This includes actual and potential clients, customers, suppliers, distributors, business contacts, agents, advisers, and government and public bodies, including their advisors, representatives and officials, politicians and political parties.
Who is Covered by the Policy?
5. This policy applies to all individuals working at all levels and grades. This includes senior managers, officers, directors, employees (whether permanent, fixed-term or temporary), consultants, contractors, trainees, seconded staff, homeworkers, casual workers and agency staff, volunteers, interns, agents, sponsors, or any other person associated with us, or any of our subsidiaries or their employees, wherever located (collectively referred to as workers in this policy).
What is Bribery?
6. A bribe is an inducement or reward offered, promised or provided in order to gain any commercial, contractual, regulatory or personal advantage.
Gifts and Hospitality
7. This policy does not prohibit normal and appropriate hospitality (given and received) to or from third parties. The giving or receipt of gifts is not prohibited, if the following requirements are met:
it is not made with the intention of influencing a third party to obtain or retain business or a business advantage, or to reward the provision or retention of business or a business advantage, or in explicit or implicit exchange for favours or benefits
it complies with local law
it is given in our name, not in your name
it does not include cash or a cash equivalent (such as gift certificates or vouchers)
it is appropriate in the circumstances, for example, after a reassessment an individual may want to write a thank you card and give a box of chocolates
taking into account the reason for the gift, it is of an appropriate type and value and given at an appropriate time
it is given openly, not secretly
gifts should not be offered to, or accepted from, government officials or representatives, or politicians or political parties, without the prior approval of the Chief Operating Officer
8. We appreciate that the practice of giving business gifts varies between countries and regions and what may be normal and acceptable in one region may not be in another. The test to be applied is whether in all the circumstances the gift or hospitality is reasonable and justifiable. The intention behind the gift should always be considered. However, as a public organisation our integrity, transparency and ethics should be of the highest standards possible.
What is Not Acceptable?
9. It is not acceptable for you (or someone on your behalf) to:
give, promise to give, or offer, a payment, gift or hospitality with the expectation or hope that a business advantage will be received, or to reward a business advantage already given
give, promise to give, or offer, a payment, gift or hospitality to a government official, agent or representative to "facilitate" or expedite a routine procedure
accept payment from a third party that you know or suspect is offered with the expectation that it will obtain a business advantage for them
accept a gift or hospitality from a third party if you know or suspect that it is offered or provided with an expectation that a business advantage will be provided by us in return
make or accept, facilitation payments or "kickbacks" of any kind
threaten or retaliate against another worker who has refused to commit a bribery offence or who has raised concerns under this policy
engage in any activity that might lead to a breach of this policy
Donations
10. We do not make contributions to political parties. We do not make charitable donations. No donation must be offered or made without the prior approval of the Chief Operating Officer.
Your Responsibilities
11. You must ensure that you read, understand and comply with this policy. The prevention, detection and reporting of bribery and other forms of corruption are the responsibility of all those working for us or under our control. All workers are required to avoid any activity that might lead to, or suggest, a breach of this policy.
12. You must notify your manager as soon as possible if you believe or suspect that a conflict with this policy has occurred or may occur in the future. For example, if a client or potential client offers you something to gain a business advantage with us or indicates to you that a gift or payment is required to secure their business.
13. Any employee who breaches this policy will face disciplinary action, which could result in dismissal for gross misconduct. We also reserve our right to terminate our contractual relationship with other workers if they breach this policy.
Record-Keeping
14. We must keep financial records and have appropriate internal controls in place which will evidence the business reason for making payments to third parties.
15. You must declare and keep a written record of all hospitality or gifts accepted or offered, which will be subject to managerial review.
16. You must ensure all expenses claims relating to hospitality, gifts or expenses incurred to third parties are submitted in accordance with our expenses policy and specifically record the reason for the expenditure.
17. All accounts, invoices, memoranda and other documents and records relating to dealings with third parties, such as clients, suppliers and business contacts, should be prepared and maintained with strict accuracy and completeness. No accounts must be kept "off-book" to facilitate or conceal improper payments.
How to Raise a Concern
18. You are encouraged to raise concerns about any issue or suspicion of malpractice at the earliest possible stage. If you are unsure whether a particular act constitutes bribery or corruption, or if you have any other queries, these should be raised with your line manager. Concerns should be reported by following the procedure set out in our Whistleblowing Policy.
Protection
19. Workers who refuse to accept or offer a bribe, or those who raise concerns or report another's wrongdoing, are sometimes worried about possible repercussions. We aim to encourage openness and will support anyone who raises genuine concerns in good faith under this policy, even if they turn out to be mistaken.
20. We are committed to ensuring no one suffers any detrimental treatment as a result of refusing to take part in bribery or corruption, or because of reporting in good faith their suspicion that an actual or potential bribery or other corruption offence has taken place or may take place in the future. Detrimental treatment includes dismissal, disciplinary action, threats or other unfavourable treatment connected with raising a concern. If you believe that you have suffered any such treatment, you should inform the Chief Operating Officer immediately. If the matter is not remedied, and you are an employee, you should raise it formally using our Grievance Procedure.
Training and Communication
21. Training on this policy forms part of the induction process for all new workers. All existing workers will receive regular, relevant training on how to implement and adhere to this policy.
22. Our zero-tolerance approach to bribery and corruption must be communicated to all suppliers, contractors and business partners at the outset of our business relationship with them and as appropriate thereafter.
Who is Responsible for the Policy?
23. The Chief Executive has overall responsibility for ensuring this policy complies with our legal and ethical obligations, and that all those under our control comply with it.
24. Management at all levels are responsible for ensuring those reporting to them are made aware of and understand this policy and are given adequate and regular training on it.
Monitoring and Review
25. ILF Scotland will monitor and review the implementation of this policy, regularly considering its suitability, adequacy and effectiveness. Any improvements identified will be made as soon as possible. Internal control systems and procedures will be subject to regular audits to provide assurance that they are effective in countering bribery and corruption. This policy does not form part of any employee's contract of employment and it may be amended at any time.
Records and Data Sharing
26. We shall retain records of data and information obtained in relation to this policy, for so long as necessary in accordance with applicable law and our Data Retention Schedule. It may also be necessary for us to share your information with third parties, such as fraud or crime prevention agencies, depending on any issues raised under this policy.
Contracts Register
Supplier
Contract Start Date
Contract End Date
Service
Value (inc VAT)
Risk & Resilience Ltd
30/10/2023
29/10/2024
Business Continuity and Resilience Services
£46,800
3x1 Group
06/11/2023
05/11/2024
Public Relations and Communications
£48,000
Henderson Loggie
01/04/2022
31/03/2025
Internal Audit Services
£39,150
Dynamic Data Systems
06/06/2024
05/06/2025
Provision of Support for ICI Support & Maintenance
£49,104
Navigator Employment Law Ltd
03/07/2023
20/07/2026
Provision of Health & Safety Services
£16,416
Navigator Employment Law Ltd
24/07/2023
23/07/2026
Provision of Employment Law Services
£32,616
Green Lemon Company
26/02/2024
25/02/2027
Provision of Customer Database Replacement
£1,679,400
Continuity 2 Ltd
06/05/2024
05/05/2027
Provision of a Risk Management Tool
£60,000
Supplier: Risk & Resilience Ltd Contract Start Date: 30/10/2023 Contract End Date: 29/10/2024 Service: Business Continuity and Resilience Services Value (inc VAT): £46,800
Supplier: 3x1 Group Contract Start Date: 06/11/2023 Contract End Date: 05/11/2024 Service: Public Relations and Communications Value (inc VAT): £48,000
Supplier: Henderson Loggie Contract Start Date: 01/04/2022 Contract End Date: 31/03/2025 Service: Internal Audit Services Value (inc VAT): £39,150
Supplier: Dynamic Data Systems Contract Start Date: 06/06/2024 Contract End Date: 05/06/2025 Service: Provision of Support for ICI Support & Maintenance Value (inc VAT): £49,104
Supplier: Navigator Employment Law Ltd Contract Start Date: 03/07/2023 Contract End Date: 20/07/2026 Service: Provision of Health & Safety Services Value (inc VAT): £16,416
Supplier: Navigator Employment Law Ltd Contract Start Date: 24/07/2023 Contract End Date: 23/07/2026 Service: Provision of Employment Law Services Value (inc VAT): £32,616
Supplier: Green Lemon Company Contract Start Date: 26/02/2024 Contract End Date: 25/02/2027 Service: Provision of Customer Database Replacement Value (inc VAT): £1,679,400
Supplier: Continuity 2 Ltd Contract Start Date: 06/05/2024 Contract End Date: 05/05/2027 Service: Provision of a Risk Management Tool Value (inc VAT): £60,000
Public Records Scotland Progress Update
The Public Records (Scotland) Act 2011 Independent Living Fund Scotland Progress Update Review (PUR) Report by the PRSA Assessment Team 27th October 2023
Contents
The Public Records (Scotland) Act 2011
Progress Update Review (PUR) Mechanism
Executive Summary
Authority Background
Assessment Process
Records Management Plan Elements Checklist and PUR Assessment
The Public Records (Scotland) Act Assessment Team’s Summary
The Public Records (Scotland) Act Assessment Team’s Evaluation
1. Public Records (Scotland) Act 2011
The Public Records (Scotland) Act 2011 (the Act) received Royal Assent on 20 April 2011. It is the first new public records legislation in Scotland since 1937 and came into force on 1 January 2013. Its primary aim is to promote efficient and accountable record keeping by named Scottish public authorities.
The Act has its origins in The Historical Abuse Systemic Review: Residential Schools and Children’s Homes in Scotland 1950-1995 (The Shaw Report) published in 2007. The Shaw Report recorded how its investigations were hampered by poor recordkeeping and found that thousands of records had been created, but were then lost due to an inadequate legislative framework and poor records management. Crucially, it demonstrated how former residents of children’s homes were denied access to information about their formative years. The Shaw Report demonstrated that management of records in all formats (paper and electronic) is not just a bureaucratic process, but central to good governance and should not be ignored. A follow-up review of public records legislation by the Keeper of the Records of Scotland (the Keeper) found further evidence of poor records management across the public sector. This resulted in the passage of the Act by the Scottish Parliament in March 2011.
The Act requires a named authority to prepare and implement a records management plan (RMP) which must set out proper arrangements for the management of its records. A plan must clearly describe the way the authority cares for the records that it creates, in any format, whilst carrying out its business activities. The RMP must be agreed with the Keeper and regularly reviewed.
2. Progress Update Review (PUR) Mechanism
Under section 5(1) & (2) of the Act the Keeper may only require a review of an authority’s agreed RMP to be undertaken not earlier than five years after the date on which the authority’s RMP was last agreed. Regardless of whether an authority has successfully achieved its goals identified in its RMP or continues to work towards them, the minimum period of five years before the Keeper can require a review of a RMP does not allow for continuous progress to be captured and recognised.
The success of the Act to date is attributable to a large degree to meaningful communication between the Keeper, the Assessment Team, and named public authorities. Consultation with Key Contacts has highlighted the desirability of a mechanism to facilitate regular, constructive dialogue between stakeholders and the Assessment Team. Many authorities have themselves recognised that such regular communication is necessary to keep their agreed plans up to date following inevitable organisational change. Following meetings between authorities and the Assessment Team, a reporting mechanism through which progress and local initiatives can be acknowledged and reviewed by the Assessment Team was proposed. Key Contacts have expressed the hope that through submission of regular updates, the momentum generated by the Act can continue to be sustained at all levels within authorities.
The PUR self-assessment review mechanism was developed in collaboration with stakeholders and was formally announced in the Keeper’s Annual Report published on 12 August 2016. The completion of the PUR process enables authorities to be credited for the progress they are effecting and to receive constructive advice concerning on-going developments. Engaging with this mechanism will not only maintain the spirit of the Act by encouraging senior management to recognise the need for good records management practices, but will also help authorities comply with their statutory obligation under section 5(1)(a) of the Act to keep their RMP under review.
3. Executive Summary
This Report sets out the findings of the Public Records (Scotland) Act 2011 (the Act) Assessment Team’s consideration of the Progress Update template submitted for Independent Living Fund Scotland. The outcome of the assessment and relevant feedback can be found under sections 6 – 8.
4. Authority Background
Following the closure of the UK Independent Living Fund (ILF) on 30th June 2015, the Scottish Government established a new organisation, Independent Living Fund (ILF) Scotland, to administer ILF for existing recipients of the fund in Scotland.
ILF Scotland is a public body, governed by a Board of Directors, appointed by and accountable to Scottish Ministers. It operates as a discretionary fund providing financial awards to over 3,000 disabled people in Scotland and Northern Ireland to help them live independently. Their funding enables individuals to pay for care so that they can be supported in their homes and within their local communities.
ILF Scotland Limited is a company limited by guarantee registered in Scotland Company Number SC500075.
5. Assessment Process
A PUR submission is evaluated by the Act’s Assessment Team. The self-assessment process invites authorities to complete a template and send it to the Assessment Team one year after the date of agreement of its RMP and every year thereafter. The self-assessment template highlights where an authority’s plan achieved agreement on an improvement basis and invites updates under those ‘Amber’ elements. However, it also provides an opportunity for authorities not simply to report on progress against improvements, but to comment on any new initiatives, highlight innovations, or record changes to existing arrangements under those elements that had attracted an initial ‘Green’ score in their original RMP submission.
The assessment report considers statements made by an authority under the elements of its agreed Plan that included improvement models. It reflects any changes and/or progress made towards achieving full compliance in those areas where agreement under improvement was made in the Keeper’s Assessment Report of their RMP. The PUR assessment report also considers statements of further progress made in elements already compliant under the Act.
Engagement with the PUR mechanism for assessment cannot alter the Keeper’s Assessment Report of an authority’s agreed RMP or any RAG assessment within it. Instead the PUR Final Report records the Assessment Team’s evaluation of the submission and its opinion on the progress being made by the authority since agreeing its RMP. The team’s assessment provides an informal indication of what marking an authority could expect should it submit a revised RMP to the Keeper under the Act, although such assessment is made without prejudice to the Keeper’s right to adopt a different marking at that stage.
Key:
Green: The Assessment Team agrees this element of an authority’s plan.
Amber: The Assessment Team agrees this element of an authority’s progress update submission as an ‘improvement model’. This means that they are convinced of the authority’s commitment to closing a gap in provision. They will request that they are updated as work on this element progresses.
Red: There is a serious gap in provision for this element with no clear explanation of how this will be addressed. The Assessment Team may choose to notify the Keeper on this basis.
6. Progress Update Review (PUR): Independent Living Fund Scotland
Element: 1. Senior Officer
Status under agreed Plan 08 Oct 19: Green Progress review status 29 Mar 21: Green Progress review status 27 Oct 23: Green Keeper's Report Comments on Authority's Plan 08 Oct 19: Update required on any change. Self-assessment Update 29 Jan 21: Senior Officer has changed from Harvey Tilley (Chief Operating Officer) to Paul Hayllor (Director of Digital and Information Services), who has also taken on the Senior Information Risk Officer role previously undertaken by Harvey. Progress Review Comment 29 Mar 21: The Keeper’s Assessment Team thanks for this update on named senior officer which has been noted. Self-assessment Update as submitted by the Authority since 29 Mar 21: No update Progress Review Comment 27 Oct 23: Update required on any change.
Element: 2. Records Manager
Status under agreed Plan 08 Oct 19: Green Progress review status 29 Mar 21: Green Progress review status 27 Oct 23: Green Keeper's Report Comments on Authority's Plan 08 Oct 19: Update required on any change. Self-assessment Update 29 Jan 21: No update Progress Review Comment 29 Mar 21: The Assessment Team note there have been no updates to this Element. Self-assessment Update as submitted by the Authority since 29 Mar 21: No update. Progress Review Comment 27 Oct 23: Update required on any change.
Element: 3. Policy
Status under agreed Plan 08 Oct 19: Green Progress review status 29 Mar 21: Green Progress review status 27 Oct 23: Green Keeper's Report Comments on Authority's Plan 08 Oct 19: Update required on any change. Self-assessment Update 29 Jan 21: No update Progress Review Comment 29 Mar 21: The Assessment Team note there have been no updates to this Element. Self-assessment Update as submitted by the Authority since 29 Mar 21: No update. Progress Review Comment 27 Oct 23: Update required on any change.
Element: 4. Business Classification
Status under agreed Plan 08 Oct 19: Green Progress review status 29 Mar 21: Green Progress review status 27 Oct 23: Green Keeper's Report Comments on Authority's Plan 08 Oct 19: The Plan explains that ILF intend to migrate their shared drives to Objective EDRM. The Keeper is familiar with this system and agrees that, if appropriately implemented, this solution should work well for ILF. Clearly, until full details are available, the effect of this migration on the IAR, and therefore the agreed Plan, is not known. The Keeper looks forward to future updates on this move. He notes that ILF intend to use the PUR process to provide annual updates (see element 13) and welcomes this. Self-assessment Update 29 Jan 21: There is no change to ILF Scotland’s planned future development in this area. However, it is worth noting to the assessment team that due to COVID-19 and pressures on our frontline teams, the project to migrate to eRDM Objective has incurred significant delays. It is now intended that the eRDM will be functional at ILF Scotland by summer 2021. Progress Review Comment 29 Mar 21: The Assessment Team welcomes this update on understandable eRDM Objective migration delays, and looks forward to more detailed updates in future PUR submissions. Self-assessment Update as submitted by the Authority since 29 Mar 21: ILF Scotland have added a worksheet to the Information Asset Register which is our detailed Record of Processing activity. This is kept up to date by the Records Manager in consultation with all functions within the organisation. Progress Review Comment 27 Oct 23: Thank you for this update which has been noted. It is great to hear that ILF Scotland continues to keep its IAR and related procedures up to date. Update required on any change.
Element: 5. Retention Schedule
Status under agreed Plan 08 Oct 19: Green Progress review status 29 Mar 21: Green Progress review status 27 Oct 23: Green Keeper's Report Comments on Authority's Plan 08 Oct 19: For comments regarding the migration to Objective EDRM, see element 4. It is possible that retention decisions will have to be revisited as part of this work. Self-assessment Update 29 Jan 21: The project to migrate to eRDM Objective has incurred significant delays. It is now intended that eRDM will be functional at ILF Scotland by summer 2021. Progress Review Comment 29 Mar 21: The Assessment Team notes retention schedules cannot be fully assessed until the implementation of eRDM Objective migration is completed. Updates on the progress in consecutive PUR submissions are welcomed. Self-assessment Update as submitted by the Authority since 29 Mar 21: ILF Scotland have modified the Information Asset Register to include a data retention schedule which is managed as part of our overall records governance structure in consultation with all functions within the organisation. This register is owned by the Senior Information Risk Officer. Progress Review Comment 27 Oct 23: Thank you for this update indicating that ILF Scotland continues to maintain its up-to-date retention schedule arrangements within its IAR framework. It is also good to hear that the SIRO has ownership (and oversight) of the Information Asset Register. Update required on any change.
Element: 6. Destruction Arrangement
Status under agreed Plan 08 Oct 19: Green Progress review status 29 Mar 21: Green Progress review status 27 Oct 23: Green Keeper's Report Comments on Authority's Plan 08 Oct 19: Update required on any change. Self-assessment Update 29 Jan 21: No update. Progress Review Comment 29 Mar 21: The Assessment Team note there have been no updates to this Element. Self-assessment Update as submitted by the Authority since 29 Mar 21: No update. Progress Review Comment 27 Oct 23: Update required on any change.
Element: 7. Archiving and Transfer
Status under agreed Plan 08 Oct 19: Amber Progress review status 29 Mar 21: Amber Progress review status 27 Oct 23: Amber Keeper's Report Comments on Authority's Plan 08 Oct 19: The Keeper can agree this element of the ILF Plan under ‘improvement model’ terms. This mean that the authority has identified a suitable repository for records selected for permanent preservation and have put processes in place to formalise transfer arrangements. The Keeper’s agreement is conditional on the MOU, between NRS and ILF being created, signed and forwarded to the PRSA Assessment Team. Self-assessment Update 29 Jan 21: We have met with colleagues at NRS and continue to communicate regarding the MoU between ILF Scotland and NRS. We are awaiting confirmation of the Crown to Crown agreement between the Scottish Government and the Northern Irish Executive which is necessary for us to formalise the MoU with NRS and PRONI. We will continue to work on this and understand that Element 7. Archiving and Transfer will remain amber until the MoU is in place. Progress Review Comment 29 Mar 21: The Assessment Team is grateful for this progress update on arrangements between ILF Scotland and the NRS, as well as the Crown-to-Crown agreement required for the MoU formalisation process. The Assessment Team welcomes updates on this process in consecutive PUR submissions. Subsequent to the original PUR submission, the ILF Scotland has sent the following positive update: ‘ILF Scotland have worked with the Scottish Government and Northern Irish Executive to finalise a new Memorandum of Understanding for the Crown to Crown Agreement and this will be used to update our archive and transfer protocols with PRONI.’ Self-assessment Update as submitted by the Authority since 29 Mar 21: Due to ongoing issues within the Northern Irish political landscape, we have only been able to work to an extension of the existing Crown to Crown memorandum of understanding. We continue to review this situation on an annual basis and are working with our NRS account manager to complete the Archive Transfer Agreement. The form has been completed and we are due to have a follow-up meeting with our account manager in Quarter 1 of 2023/24. Progress Review Comment 27 Oct 23: The Assessment Team thanks you for this update on ongoing MoU negotiations with PRONI. It is reassuring to hear that discussions regarding the completion of an Archive Transfer Agreement with NRS are ongoing. This Element will remain at Amber while a formal Agreement is still being finalised. The Assessment Team welcomes updates on this process in subsequent PUR submissions.
Element: 8. Information Security
Status under agreed Plan 08 Oct 19: Green Progress review status 29 Mar 21: Green Progress review status 27 Oct 23: Green Keeper's Report Comments on Authority's Plan 08 Oct 19: Update required on any change. Self-assessment Update 29 Jan 21: No update. Progress Review Comment 29 Mar 21: The Assessment Team note there have been no updates to this Element. Self-assessment Update as submitted by the Authority since 29 Mar 21: No update. Progress Review Comment 27 Oct 23: Update required on any change.
9. Element: Data Protection
Status under agreed Plan 08 Oct 19: Green Progress review status 29 Mar 21: Green Progress review status 27 Oct 23: Green Keeper's Report Comments on Authority's Plan 08 Oct 19: Update required on any change. Self-assessment Update 29 Jan 21: No update. Progress Review Comment 29 Mar 21: The Assessment Team note there have been no updates to this Element. Self-assessment Update as submitted by the Authority since 29 Mar 21: We have introduced an in-depth data protection induction for new staff. We have put in place an internal reporting framework for data incidents which enables us to better investigate and reach decisions on the seriousness of data incidents. As part of this we have added a learning log which captures organisational lessons learned from incidents experienced by staff. Our information Governance Officer has completed formal data protection training to enable the team to be more agile. Progress Review Comment 27 Oct 23: Thank you for letting the Assessment Team know that data protection induction for new staff at Independent living Fund Scotland has been updated and extended, and that IG Officer has also completed additional data protection training. A more centralised approach to capturing (and learning from) internal ‘data incidents’ is also noted with thanks. Update required on any change.
Element: 10. Business Continuity and Vital Records
Status under agreed Plan 08 Oct 19: Green Progress review status 29 Mar 21: Green Progress review status 27 Oct 23: Green Keeper's Report Comments on Authority's Plan 08 Oct 19: Update required on any change. Self-assessment Update 29 Jan 21: No update. Progress Review Comment 29 Mar 21: The Assessment Team note there have been no updates to this Element. Self-assessment Update as submitted by the Authority since 29 Mar 21: ILF Scotland has completed a large-scale project to enable all functional areas to set their teams’ cyber security risk and resilience thresholds. The outcome of this work has been the creation of a crisis management and crisis support team to ensure business continuity in this area. One outcome of this has been to repurpose Huddle as an ‘off SCOTS’ repository for vital documents. In the final quarter of 2022/23 we completed a total overhaul of our shared G:Drive during which all documents and records have been reviewed, marked for deletion or placed in a more logical location and renamed. The product of this project has been a new file plan and comprehensive staff guidance on naming conventions and file locations. Progress Review Comment 27 Oct 23: Thank you for this positive update on the creation of a crisis management and crisis support team, resulting from focus on cyber security risk and resilience thresholds and renewed focus on business continuity. It is particularly great to hear of the completion of G: Drive review exercise while ILF Scotland pursues a full transition to a single eDRMs (Objective), including a new file plan and staff guidance on naming conventions. Update required on any change.
Element: 11. Audit Trail
Status under agreed Plan 08 Oct 19: Amber Progress review status 29 Mar 21: Amber Progress review status 27 Oct 23: Amber Keeper's Report Comments on Authority's Plan 08 Oct 19: The Keeper can agree this element of the Independent Living Fund Scotland Records Management Plan under ‘improvement model’ terms. This means that the authority has identified a gap in provision (in this case that naming convention guidance is not fully developed and rolled-out), but have put process in place to close that gap. The Keeper’s agreement is conditional on the work suggested in the Plan progressing and on him being updated when appropriate. Self-assessment Update 29 Jan 21: It had been planned that element 11, Audit Trail, would be addressed by the move to eRDM Objective. The project to migrate to eRDM Objective has incurred significant delays. It is now intended that eRDM will be functional at ILF Scotland by summer 2021. We will continue to work on this and understand that Element 11 will remain amber until naming conventions guidance is addressed through the course of the eRDM migration project. Progress Review Comment 29 Mar 21: The Assessment team acknowledges the challenges incurred in the implementation of eRDM Objective migration, and welcomes updates on this important matter in subsequent PUR submissions. Subsequent to the original PUR submission, the ILF Scotland has sent the following positive update: ‘We are […] completing the guidance on naming conventions which will be rolled out prior to the migration to Objective eRDM this summer.’ Self-assessment Update as submitted by the Authority since 29 Mar 21: The Digital and Information Services Team has rolled out and internal audit template to all teams to be managed by the Information Management Support Officer for each team. This will be run as a pilot for Q1 of 2023/24 with the view to commencing the annual audit in October 2023 in line with the annual review of our Records Management Plan. The outcome of the audits will be viewed by the Information Management Team before a formal report on organisational health in this area is sent to the Senior Management Team. Progress Review Comment 27 Oct 23: Under Element 10, ILF Scotland reported that naming convention guidance has now been rolled out. This is excellent news. While the ERDMs project is still ongoing, alongside a file plan, a consistently-applied file naming practices can immediately improve the discoverability of records. The Assessment Team thanks ILF Scotland for informing us of the upcoming audit which may be able to clarify how successful the implementation has been. While the main gap identified by the Keeper in 2019 has now been closed (development and implementation of naming convention guidance), the move to new ERDM system (Objective) will likely continue to complicate digital records’ audit trail arrangements for some time. This Element will remain at Amber until ILF Scotland has completed its move to this new system. It is, however, clear that positive progress on this Element continues to be made. This is commendable.
Element: 12. Competency Framework
Status under agreed Plan 08 Oct 19: Green Progress review status 29 Mar 21: Green Progress review status 27 Oct 23: Green Keeper's Report Comments on Authority's Plan 08 Oct 19: Update required on any change. Self-assessment Update 29 Jan 21: No update. Progress Review Comment 29 Mar 21: The Assessment Team note there have been no updates to this Element. Subsequent to the PUR submission, the ILF ‘report that 2 staff members have undertaken formal records management training during this particularly challenging period and are increasing the collective competence and capability of ILF Scotland to manage its records appropriately’. This news is welcomed by the Assessment Team. Self-assessment Update as submitted by the Authority since 29 Mar 21: No update Progress Review Comment 27 Oct 23: Update required on any change.
Element: 13. Assessment and Review
Status under agreed Plan 08 Oct 19: Green Progress review status 29 Mar 21: Green Progress review status 27 Oct 23: Green Keeper's Report Comments on Authority's Plan 08 Oct 19: ILF have provided the Keeper with their Policy Review Schedule. This shows that: The Information Governance Policy (see element 3), the Retention Policy (see element 5) and the Data Protection Policy (see element 9) are all due for review by July 2020 Also, the Data Protection – TF13 statement was due to be reviewed at the time of this assessment. The ILF Scotland Patch Management Policy should be reviewed at least annually (PM Policy section 5). The Information Asset Register is reviewed annually. The Business Continuity Plan (see element 10) provides for regular testing (section 8 of Business Continuity Plan and page 15 of Handbook). Data Sharing Agreements (see element 14) are reviewed annually (Plan under Element 14). Self-assessment Update 29 Jan 21: The RMP and all associated documents have been reviewed within their agreed review cycles and no significant changes have been required. Progress Review Comment 29 Mar 21: Thank you for the confirmation that agreed review cycles are being adhered to; this has been noted by the Assessment Team. Self-assessment Update as submitted by the Authority since 29 Mar 21: We have put in place two levels of governance around assessment and review which formalises the internal process. Firstly we have put in place Information Management Support Officers who meet as a group monthly to share best practice and ask questions of the Records Management Team. Added to that we have created the Information Management Group which meets quarterly to address any issues raised by the IMSOs, and to manage the review of the RMP and its attending assets. Progress Review Comment 27 Oct 23: This is a welcome update on the formalisation of Records Management Plan (and its attending assets’) regular review process. It is also clear than ILF Scotland has put in place structures (IMSOs and an Information Management Group) to keep testing the continuing implementation of the Records Management Plan and adjacent plans, policies and procedures. Update required on any change.
Element: 14. Shared Information
Status under agreed Plan 08 Oct 19: Green Progress review status 29 Mar 21: Green Progress review status 27 Oct 23: Green Keeper's Report Comments on Authority's Plan 08 Oct 19: Update required on any change. Self-assessment Update 29 Jan 21: No update. Progress Review Comment 29 Mar 21: The Assessment Team note there have been no updates to this Element. Self-assessment Update as submitted by the Authority since 29 Mar 21: No update Progress Review Comment 27 Oct 23: Update required on any change.
7. The Public Records (Scotland) Act Assessment Team’s Summary
Version
The progress update submission which has been assessed is the one received by the Assessment Team on 23rd of March 2023. The progress update was submitted by Marianne Craig, Business Information and Data Protection Officer.
The progress update submission makes it clear that it is a submission for Independent Living Fund Scotland.
The Assessment Team has reviewed Independent Living Fund Scotland’s Progress Update submission and agrees that the proper record management arrangements outlined by the various elements in the authority’s plan continue to be properly considered. The Assessment Team commends this authority’s efforts to keep its Records Management Plan under review.
General Comments
Independent Living Fund Scotland continues to take its records management obligations seriously and is working to bring all elements into full compliance.
Section 5(2) of the Public Records (Scotland) Act 2011 provides the Keeper of the Records of Scotland (the Keeper) with authority to revisit an agreed plan only after five years has elapsed since the date of agreement. Section 5(6) allows authorities to revise their agreed plan at any time and resubmit this for the Keeper’s agreement. The Act does not require authorities to provide regular updates against progress. The Keeper, however, encourages such updates.
The Keeper cannot change the status of elements formally agreed under a voluntary submission, but he can use such submissions to indicate how he might now regard this status should the authority choose to resubmit its plan under section (5)(6) of the Act.
8. The Public Records (Scotland) Act Assessment Team’s Evaluation
Based on the progress update assessment the Assessment Team considers that Independent Living Fund Scotland continue to take their statutory obligations seriously and are working hard to bring all the elements of their records management arrangements into full compliance with the Act and fulfil the Keeper’s expectations.
The Assessment Team recommends authorities consider publishing PUR assessment reports on their websites as an example of continued good practice both within individual authorities and across the sector.
This report follows the Public Records (Scotland) Act Assessment Team’s review carried out by Iida Saarinen, Public Records Officer.
Getting Out and About
Getting Out and About - NIN Member's Experiences of Travel
Report from National Involvement Network Meeting in Glasgow on 29th June 2023.
"Anything is possible if you put your mind to it" - Quote from NIN Member
Contents
Key Messages Introduction About this report Tom's Story What challenges do you face when getting out and about? What's stopping people getting around and what can we do about it? Your Questions Answered by Stagecoach Next Steps What's on your mind? Useful information Find out more
Key Messages
NIN members shared the wide range of things that they would like to get out and about to do, including: getting involved in sports; socialising; travel; pursuing and taking up new hobbies, activities and interests.
Challenges NIN members face getting out and about:
reliability of public transport
behaviour of other passengers
cuts in services
unhelpful drivers
anxiety
accessibility of the transport system.
Barriers to getting out about
worries and lack of confidence
difficulty getting the right support
having access to toilets
availability of public transport
being able to afford it
access to services and facilities
behaviour of other people.
What would help
NIN members believe there are changes that need to happen so they can fully take part in society and the community and access the same services and facilities as everyone else.
Most important is having the right support and having services, including public transport, accessible to them.
"What's important to me is getting out and about without always having to rely on others” - Quote from NIN member
Introduction
About the NIN
NIN is short for National Involvement Network. At the NIN we are working to make the Charter for Involvement a reality. We think everyone should have a voice and be heard. The Charter for Involvement sets out how people want to be involved in the support that they get, in the organisations that provide their services and in the wider community.
Background to the meeting in Glasgow
Getting out and about is a topic that NIN members have been talking about a lot in their local networks. In order to live independently and be involved in the community, people need to be able to move around freely. Some people need support to get out and about and transport needs to be accessible to all. We wanted to hear people's experiences of getting out and about. This report shows what NIN members said at the NIN meeting in Glasgow on 29th June 2023.
This meeting was chaired by Lynnette Linton. There were 55 people at the meeting in total.
About this report
This report is about the NIN meeting in Glasgow on 29th June 2023. The Theme was Getting Out and About. This links to Charter Statement 2 - we have a right to live our lives independently and Charter Statement 3 - we must be involved in our communities.
Tom's Story
Tom Mitchell, Chair of Ayrshire Involvement Network, did a presentation about what people have been saying about transport in Ayrshire.
"We rely on public transport to get to the places we want. There are some places we can't get to on public transport, so we have to get a lift in a car. If there is no one free we can't go. Some people rely on paid workers with cars to get their shopping.”
"Bus and train services have been cut. A bus journey takes twice as long as in a car. The bus from Glasgow to Kilbirnie takes 1hour. The last bus is at 5.15. If you want to go home later, you can get 3 buses which takes 2 1⁄2 hours.”
The main problems in Ayrshire are:
getting help and support
not enough services
attitude of drivers
other passengers
getting bus passes
dealing with things that go wrong
Ideas from Ayrshire that might help:
ask someone for help
have a travel plan
arrange to meet someone
phone someone when you arrive
find a travel buddy
get help to learn a new route
write to the bus company
awareness training for drivers
awareness campaign
make posters
What challenges do you face when getting out and about?
We discussed the challenges getting out and about in groups. These were the main issues:
Reliability
"Bus companies change routes and don't tell us. They say look up the website but some of us can't do that." "Buses keep changing, I get confused" "Buses don't turn up; I have to contact my mum to let her know as she'll be worried if Idon't come back on time"
Other passengers
"I got harassed on a train due to football. Staff did nothing about it." "People don't move for me on buses. It shouldn't be up to my support to have to ask them. It's not nice" "Someone thought I was drunk, they assumed it, as I had trouble walking. I don't even drink alcohol. It was embarrassing"
Cuts in services
"McGill 's have cut a lot of services" "The bus drove away without me because it was full" "I couldn't find a seat on the bus. It can be very squeezed”
Drivers
"Bus drivers should understand how we feel getting on a bus. Sometimes buses don't put the ramp out." "Some buses are allowed 2 wheelchairs, but drivers think it's too much hard work" "I got asked to show my bag. I was embarrassed as it had things for my bladder in." "Bus drivers pull away too fast. They break too fast. If you can't see right, you need to be aware.
Anxiety
"I'm shy meeting people l'm not confident I'm unsure on my own and don't know the people on the bus." "I get stressed on buses when someone random sits beside me I don't know. I don't like when buses are busy, I have autism" "Sometimes when I get on a crowded bus or train I can get very anxious and can have panic attacks”
Accessibility
"The taxi was too low to get in" "The new bus layout on stagecoach is not good, difficult for my wheelchair to manoeuvre" "Underground is not good for wheelchairs. No access for wheelchairs at Buchanan Street" "If you're dyslexic and don't read it's difficult at bus stations." "I can't get my mobility scooter on the bus, it's too big. It means I can't get out of Dundee without someone supporting me.”
What's stopping people getting around and what can we do about it?
People went into groups to discuss 3 questions. This is what they said.
Question 1: What do you like doing and what places would you like to go to?
Sports - fishing, badminton, stock car racing, football watching, swimming, gym, ten-pin bowling, park-run, walking, St Mirren
Socialising - partying, clubbing, dates-and-mates, friendship club, drama group, The Attic, spending time with friends and family, meals out with friends, pub, night out
Travel - NYC, Inverness, Tenerife, in the environment, bus or train across Scotland, Canaries, Australia, go abroad, holiday, New Zealand, Germany for Euros, cruise, African safari, countryside
Hobbies - shopping, eating, artwork, reading, creative writing, Zumba, singing, drums, karaoke, cinema, art, DJ, music group
Other - housework, Sealife Centre, museums to learn, restaurant, eating, Dalkeith Country Park, Blair Drummond Safari Park, X-Cite Braehead, out on my scooter, church
Question 2: What barriers would you face getting there?
Worries - lack of confidence, dislike public transport, getting to new places on my own, out on my scooter, change in routine, anxiety, motivation, never flown before, fear of flying
Lack of facilities and expense - toilets, cleanliness of toilets, disabled toilets on transport, no changing places, cost, money, football season tickets too expensive
No Access - deaf or hearing impairment, not accessible, stairs at the station, lack of access to bus timetables, no appropriate groups
No Support - hard planning, need a driver, need guide at the pool, not enough staff to support me, support hours, lack of mental health support
Other People - sound proofing, name calling, cars parking on pavements, too crowded to swim
Transport not available - no transport, transport issues, getting public transport with a wheelchair, lack of public transportation on a Sunday, need to get 2 buses!
Question 3: What can you or other people do to help?
Involve others - get the community involved, peer support, get support from friends and family, teamwork, involve local charities
Changes that would help - more support staff, train staff, more changing places, more transport for wheelchairs, cleaner toilets, better accessibility
Things you might try to do - look online, ask if there is a discount, ask for help, save money, book ahead of going to pool, encourage others to take the bus, plan ahead, meet new people, ask Scotrail staff for help
Things you might try to develop - compromise, help others to understand, understand other people, develop trust, help others
Your Questions Answered by Stagecoach
Alison McCluskie from Stagecoach was invited. Alison is Operations Director for the West of Scotland.
Stagecoach is a very big company. Across the UK, they have 8,000 buses and 24,000 staff. In the West of Scotland, they have 900 staff. 600 are drivers. All drivers must have a Driver Certificate of Professional Competence (CPC). After they have done P C drivers do customer care training, which includes awareness of disabled passenger's needs.
On the next 2 pages is the information Alison gave the NIN in response to questions. We hope it is helpful for you.
Services reduced after lots of people stopped using buses because of Covid.
For people worried about missing their stop, many new buses have audible announcements and visual displays.
If the kerb is too high or too low, you should contact the council.
Stagecoach could tell ARC Scotland when they change timetables. Then ARC could tell NIN members.
If there is a pram or someone in the wheelchair space the driver should ask them to move. They can't make them move. If there isn't another bus soon the driver can phone the depot. They can get you a taxi.
Some journeys get cancelled because there is a shortage of drivers. If you have Twitter, you can check there. You can also track the bus on the Stagecoach app.
You can't take a bike on a bus. If it's in a bike bag you can take it on a longer journey.
Stagecoach expects drivers to treat customers correctly. We always want to know if they don't. Complain, let us know, we want to correct it. Go to our website to complain.
You can get a Thistle Card to show if you need extra help. This might make you less anxious and help drivers understand your issues.
Buses can be busy. This is good for us but can cause anxiety. Buses are legally registered for a certain number standing and seated. Drivers cannot let more on.
Buses should never be early. They can be late. You can use the app or tracker to see.
Some buses are reduced because there weren't enough people.
Tell your driver if you are worried about how other people on the bus are behaving.
You can take a mobility scooter on the bus. You go to the bus depot and practice getting on and off the bus. We check that the turning circle fits. We will then give you a card saying you can take your scooter on the bus.
Next Steps
Everyone wrote down one first step they are going to take to help them get out and about more. Here are a few examples:
"Speak up more"
"Plan the journey and meet up with neighbourhood networks group."
"Campaign about amenities at Glasgow Stations."
"Come to NIN group meetings."
What could you do?
Fiona Dawson NIN Co-Chair - "I want to encourage people to take part in the NIN, it's there for everyone”
Michael Connolly NIN Co-Chair - "The NIN has changed my life for the better, I would like to see more people getting involved”
"I want to try new experiences and believe in myself and be adventurous and meet new people" - Quote from NIN Member
What's on your mind?
We wanted to make sure the NIN is really reflecting the views of all its members and talking about the hot topics. At the end of the meeting everyone wrote down wrote down what feels important to them at the moment.
ARC Scotland will use this information to keep track of what really matters to NIN members. The NIN planning group will use it to help decide the right topics for meetings.
Useful Information
The Accessible Travel Hub is a place for you to find information, articles and guidance about accessible travel in Scotland. https://accessibletravel.scot/
Thistle Assistance Card and app Go to this website for all the information on how to get the card or app: https://www.thistleassistance.com/ You can get the Card from: Highlands and Islands (HITRANS) Phone: 01463 719002 Aberdeen (Nestrans) Phone: 01224 346680 Edinburgh (SEStran) Phone: 0131 524 5150 Glasgow (SPT) Phone: 0141 332 6811 Dumfries (SWestrans) Phone: 01387 260383 Perth (Tactran) Phone: 01738 475775 Shetland (ZetTrans) Phone: 01595 744 868
The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is an agreement that says what countries must do to make sure disabled people have the same rights as everybody else. It has 12 parts called Articles. Article 9 is about Accessibility. It says we must find out what stops people from fully taking part and make access easier for everyone. This includes being able to get out and about and to use transport on an equal basis.
Association for Real Change, Unit 12, Hardengreen Business Centre, Eskbank, Dalkeith, Midlothian, EH22 3NX 0131 663 4444 Registered Charity No. 285575, Scottish Charity No. SCO39129
Northern Ireland Social Impact Card 2019-2020
Our journey
ILF Scotland is a public body, governed by a Board of Directors, appointed by and accountable to Scottish Ministers. ILF Scotland operates as a discretionary fund providing financial awards to over 4,000 disabled people in Scotland and Northern Ireland to help them live independently. Our funding enables individuals to pay for care so that they can be supported in their homes and within their local communities.
What we do
We aim to ensure our recipients have choice and control over how and when they are supported in all aspects of their daily lives, as well as facilitating real participation and inclusion for individuals within their local communities. We provide financial support to 435 disabled people in Northern Ireland.
Our Positive Impact
Emotional Wellbeing Difference made:
Reduced isolation
Feeling safe
Optimism & motivation
Choice and control
Sustaining Support Difference made:
Informal carers
Relationships
Prevention Difference made:
Learning to be independent
Sustaining natural support
Early intervention
Health Maintenance Difference made:
Medical health
Appointments
Exercise & being active
'Getting on with life' Difference made:
Employment & education
Future planning
435 People receive the Independent Living Fund in Northern Ireland
£6.85m Total funding for 2019/20 financial year
The social value generated by ILF for a range of stakeholders demonstrates extended impact & value for money
Stakeholders
Recipients
Family & Primary Carers
Health & Social Care Trusts
Personal Assistants
Northern Ireland economy
Norther Ireland Civic society
Centre for Independent Living NI
Domiciliary / social care service providers
Stakeholder percentage share
77% ILF Recipients
20% Health & Social Care Trusts
2% Personal Assistants
0.9% Family & Carers
0.1% Northern Ireland Civic Society
Personal Assistants Reported
100 - Being better off financially as a result of their improved conditions 300 - Better access to quality training opportunities 150 - Reduced stress levels as a result of a supportive working environment
For every £1 invested in the Independent Living Fund we generated £10.89 in social value
Recipients reported
85% - Improved emotional health
85% - Reduced isolation
90% - They felt safer, had more individual choice & control and are more active
80% - Increased engagement with local community & enhanced contribution to society
I would be socially isolated and lonely without ILF support…
I don’t want to live in an institution. ILF means I can live in my own home…
ILF lets me plan ahead and set goals…
I’ve had to be in bed for the past nine months but ILF has meant I’m still here in my home and connected to the outside, to my family and friends…
The fund kept our marriage together for longer so we were there for him… We know we have the fund for our son and can make plans now and for his future…
ILF Scotland worked in partnership with Centre for Independent Living NI on this project
Gauge Impact - Social Impact Measurement Data and impact measurement by www.gaugeimpact.org
Northern Ireland Impact Evaluation
Foreword
This Report reveals, empirically, for the first time, to politicians, professionals and the public generally, what recipients of the Independent Living Fund, their families and friends have known for years: that it is genuinely life enhancing, essentially life giving, clearly cost effective and exceptionally law abiding. Independent living is all about freedom for disabled people. It means the freedom to choose and control your own life, the freedom to determine and decide what you do, when, where and how you do it, and with whom, the freedom to live a life worth living. The pages that follow show just how much the Independent Living Fund contributes, uniquely, to making freedom real for its recipients, and, by extension, their families and friends. The evidence of their lived experiences detailed here is remarkable in itself and for its consistent praise of the Fund. Just as remarkable is the tenfold plus social return on investment calculation, taken from the research findings. It offers a distinct insight into the financial benefits of the Fund for society as a whole. Conclusively, it is clear throughout that the Independent Living Fund goes some way to fulfilling the Government’s obligations under Article 19 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities and, as such, is a prime example of best practice. For all this, my heartfelt thanks goes to Emma O’Neill and Finbarr Fitzpatrick, for producing such a comprehensive, complete and influential piece of work, and to everyone else for contributing so willingly to this Report, especially those who bared their souls and told their very personal and private stories so that others might benefit. Please, allow me to commend it to you, with praise, pleasure and pride.
David McDonald Chairperson Independent Living Fund Scotland Northern Ireland Stakeholder Group
Acknowledgments
We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the Independent Living Fund Scotland (ILFS) recipients and award managers who contributed to the impact evaluation, without your input the project would not have been possible.
We would also like to thank the ILFS Northern Ireland Stakeholder Group, ILFS and the Department of Health for their on-going support
Executive Summary
There are 448 people receiving the Independent Living Fund Scotland (ILFS) in Northern Ireland (NI), with funding for 2019/20 financial year totalling £6.85 million. The fund was originally set up in 1988 as a dedicated financial resource for people with disabilities whose needs had previously meant their only options were residential care settings or a very restricted life. The fund tops up resources provided by local Health and Social Care Trusts (HSC Trusts) for individuals with the highest levels of assessed social care needs. ILFS recipients or their appointed award managers receive a cash payment that they use to either purchase services and/or employ their own staff to meet their assistance needs.
The fund aims to make a positive difference to recipients’ lives in the following areas:
Having choice and control to manage support and lifestyle preferences.
Keeping fit and well in body and mind to maintain mental and physical health.
Keeping safe and well inside and outside of the home.
Undertaking work, learning, training, hobbies and interests.
Maintaining relationships with family, friends and the community.
Supporting informal carers to continue to provide assistance.
In 2010, the UK Government closed the Independent Living Fund to new applicants after a series of reviews by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) indicated it was no longer financially sustainable. The original ILF UK closed in 2015, with funding for existing recipients transferred to authorities in England and to devolved administrations in the rest of the UK. Based on the feedback provided during public consultation, the NI Executive Government determined the best option to manage the fund going forward was to form a successor body that would continue to provide funding in its original form.
A similar approach adopted by the Scottish Government resulted in the establishment of ILF Scotland (ILFS), which then undertook responsibility to administer the funds to people in Scotland and NI. A key priority for ILF Scotland is to ensure disabled people are at the heart of everything they do, which led to the formation of Stakeholder Groups who include recipients, award managers and other key stakeholders to advise, guide and bring their lived experiences to the forefront of the organisation.
In April 2019, the NI and Scotland Stakeholder Groups came together for the first time; recipients highlighted the vital contribution the fund makes to their lives and together with non-recipients of ILFS raised the prospect of the fund reopening to new applicants because they wanted other people to have the same opportunities to achieve independence. In response, the Department of Health (DoH) Permanent Secretary, Richard Pengelly committed to a scoping exercise in order to prepare a proposal for consideration when the NI Health Minister returned to office. At the following ILFS NI Stakeholder Group meeting, the group discussed the need to build an evidence base to demonstrate the impact of the ILFS funding that would assist the proposal development.
Evidencing Outcomes
We co-designed and developed the impact evaluation with the NI Stakeholder Group to evidence:
Direct impact for recipients
Indirect impact for family, informal carers and their community
Extended financial impact and social value
CILNI collected data primarily through an impact survey sent to all 448 recipients and/ or award managers. In total, 120 (27%) surveys were returned (recipients n=105, award managers n=15). In addition, CILNI collected eleven personal stories of using the fund by six recipients and five award managers who were immediate family members. CILNI obtained quantitative data relating to the employment of Personal Assistants (PAs) from its Payroll Service and ILF Scotland and it completed informal interviews with five PAs employed via the fund. CILNI gathered further information from two HSC Trust SDS Implementation Officers. It then analysed qualitative data using Thematic Content Analysis (TCA) and monetised and valued using Social Return on Investment (SROI) methodology.
Direct Impact
CILNI evidenced the direct impact of the ILFS funding for recipients using survey and personal story data. Initial analysis of the survey data indicated the fund made a difference to recipients at home (n=110), in the community (n=95), to health and emotional wellbeing (n=106) and in the areas of employment (n=8) and education (n=15). However, thematic analysis of the survey and personal story responses highlighted significant overlap of these domains as outlined in Table 1. Recipients directly attribute these outcomes to the ILFS funding and consider life without the fund as comparable to death. Over a minimum of 10 years, the combined influence of emotional wellbeing, health maintenance, sustaining natural support and ‘getting on with life’ demonstrate a clear preventative effect because recipients are better positioned to manage and overcome challenges they encounter in daily life. Based on this data alone, the fund has clearly achieved its original aims to make a positive difference to their lives.
Outcome: Emotional wellbeing Sub outcome: Reduced isolation, Feeling safe, Optimism and motivation, Choice and control
Outcome: Health maintenance Sub outcome: Medical / health appointments, Exercise and being active
Outcome: Sustaining natural support Sub outcome: Informal carers, Relationships
Outcome: 'Getting on with life' Sub outcome: Employment and education, Future planning
Outcome: Prevention Sub outcome: Learning to be independent, Sustaining natural support, Early intervention
Indirect Impact
CILNI was able to evidence indirect impact of the fund on family and informal carers where family members typically provide naturally occurring support systems surrounding recipients. Analysis of survey and personal story data indicated they too attributed input from the ILFS to their emotional wellbeing through improved mood and feeling better able to cope with their caring role. Aging parents of recipients outlined having the fund in place meant they could plan when they would be less able to provide informal assistance. As with the recipient data, the collective impact of these outcomes over time demonstrates the preventative effect of the ILFS funding because it has reduced the likelihood of a breakdown in the natural support surrounding the recipient and sustained the natural context of the relationships between family members.
PAs – Recipients and award managers preferred to choose PAs to meet their support needs. The evidence gathered suggests that ILFS funding indirectly affected PAs because it not only created employment opportunities within the community but was also the preferred option for PAs in comparison to other types of caring career options. They describe a reciprocal relationship with their employer, better rates of pay, and professional development opportunities. They also highlighted the personal fulfilment and motivation they felt within their role.
HSC Trusts – The impact evaluation has provided some evidence that suggests another indirect impact of the ILFS funding is how it facilitated a learning process for HSC Trusts, particularly in relation to the implementation of SDS. While it was only possible to collect limited data, the information provided demonstrates a positive influence on the broader social care context in NI.
Independent Living Movement (ILM) – The ILM strongly advocates that resources should be provided in ways that enable people to have choice and control over their support and lifestyle choices. The impact evaluation demonstrates why this model of resource provision works. Even in the presence of the highest level of assessed support needs and associated risk factors, people can achieve independence and sustain this over an extended period. Assistance has reduced some of the practical barriers disabled people face on a daily basis and in line with the ILM, people are living their lives with choice and control and are present and active in their communities. Notably, some of the recipients in this evaluation use their funding to actively campaign for the rights of people with a disability.
Extended Impact
The social value generated by ILFS for a range of stakeholders demonstrates extended impact and value for money. The ILFS, through its £6.85 million allocation to Northern Ireland recipients in 2019 generated a social value of £1: £10.89. This is based on a Total Present Value of £74,569,097 created against the input of £6,850,000.
The calculations applied financial proxies to twenty-one outcomes for five material stakeholder groups evidenced through the primary and secondary research. Value accrued per stakeholder is segmented below:
Stakeholder: ILFS Recipients Social Value: £57,279,460 Percentage: 77%
Stakeholder: Health & Social Care Trusts (HSCTs) Social Value: £15,029,490 Percentage: 20%
Stakeholder: Personal Assistants Social Value: £1,509,353 Percentage: 2%
Stakeholder: Family/Carers Social Value: £691,969 Percentage: 0.9%
Stakeholder: Northern Ireland Civic Society Social Value: £58,825 Percentage: 0.1%
Total Social Value: £74,569,097 Percentage: 100%
Discussion
Based on the findings of the impact evaluation, the ILFS has achieved considerably more than its initial intentions, which strongly support the NI Executive Government decision to retain the fund in its original form. The direct, indirect and extended impact of the fund emphasises the importance of the current scoping exercise when examining if and how the fund could reopen to new applicants. Additionally, with no known publicly available literature to suggest the fund was set up as a preventative measure, ILF Scotland may wish to consider how it can further evaluate and utilise this as an invaluable learning resource for the broader social care and independent living contexts.
The social value generated by ILFS for a range of stakeholders demonstrates good value for money. ILFS recipients accrue the greatest value but the £15,029,490 value for Health & Social Care Trusts is noteworthy given the current pressures on their budgets. The biggest contributor to this figure for HSCTs is the savings accrued through reduced admissions to residential care facilities. In excess of 90% of recipients who responded to the questionnaire felt that in the absence of ILFS funding they would have had to move into residential care.
The SROI findings therefore augment the evidence base for the impact of the fund in two key areas namely, the outcomes achieved for recipients and external stakeholders and value for money.
Contents
1.0 Introduction 1.1 Independent Living Movement 1.2 History of the Independent Living Fund Scotland 1.3 The role of the Independent Living Fund for Northern Ireland recipients 1.4 Background to the Impact Evaluation
2.0 Aim
3.0 Methodology
4.0 Evidencing outcomes 4.1 Recipient / Award Manager survey data 4.2 Recipient / Award Manager personal stories 4.3 Personal Assistants 4.4 Heath and Social Care Trusts
5.0 Social Return on Investment Analysis
6.0 Discussion
7.0 Appendices
Abbreviations
Centre for Independent Living Northern Ireland: CILNI
Department for Work and Pensions: DWP
Department of Health: DoH
Direct Payment: DP
Health and Social Care Board: HSC Board
Health and Social Care Trust: HSC Trust
Independent Living Fund Scotland: ILFS
Independent Living Movement: ILM
Member of the Legislative Assembly: MLA
Northern Ireland: NI
Personal Assistant: PA
Personal Budget: PB
Self Directed Support: SDS
Social Return on Investment: SROI
Thematic Content Analysis: TCA
United Kingdom: UK
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Independent Living Movement
Independent living is a philosophy, a way of life and is represented by a worldwide movement of people with disabilities, working together for the same equal rights and opportunities as non-disabled people. 1 While there are varying definitions of independent living, many people living with a disability describe it as:
‘having the same freedom, choice, dignity and control as other citizens at home, at work and in the community. It does not necessarily mean living by yourself or fending for yourself. It means the right to practical assistance and support to participate in society and live an ordinary life’. 2
Underpinned by the Social Model of Disability, the Independent Living Movement (ILM) highlights the systemic barriers, attitudes and exclusions by society (directly and indirectly) that act as a causative factor in disabling people. While physical, sensory, intellectual/learning, or psychological variations may result in individual functional limitations; these do not have to lead to disability because society should take account of and include people regardless of their individual differences. 3 The global ILM has been fighting for disabled people’s rights since the 1960s and gained significant traction, especially with the adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) 4, where Article 19 entrenches the right to live independently and to be included in the community. 5
From the early 1970s in the United Kingdom (UK), people with disabilities and their representative organisations have campaigned for, and won, important changes to policy and legislation that meant for the first time they could aspire to the same ‘ordinary lives’ as non-disabled people. Importantly they highlighted the need for resources to be provided in ways to enable people to have choice and control over their own support needs. 6
One of those achievements was the Independent Living Fund (ILF), set up in 1988 as a direct result of opposition to changes in the benefit system 7 . Using eligibility criteria, the ILF topped up funding available from local authorities across the UK. This was in recognition that those with the highest levels of support needs required assistance that local authorities did not provide. The ILF funding made a major difference to individuals whose needs had previously meant their only options were residential care settings, or a very restricted life for them and their families. 8
2 What is Independent Living? Independent living in Scotland. 3 Swansea Association of Independent Living. The Social Model of Disability. 7 National Health Service. A Disability History Timeline. 2013.
1.2 History of the Independent Living Fund
Set up as a national resource, the ILF UK was dedicated to the financial support of disabled people, enabling them to choose to live in the community rather than residential care. Recipients typically used funding received from the ILF to employ a personal assistant (PA) or a carer. Although government-funded via the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), the ILF was a non-departmental public body that operated as an independent and discretional trust fund managed by a board of trustees. 9
The original fund closed to new applicants in 1993, with the implementation of the Independent Living (1993) Fund for all new applications from 1993 to 2007, with the applied eligibility criteria:
Resident in the UK for at least 26 weeks per year.
Receive social services support worth at least £340 per week.
Receive or be entitled to the highest rate care component of Disability Living Allowance.
Have less than £23,250 in savings or capital (including savings and capital of their partner).
Live independently in the community rather than in residential care.
The amount of funding a person receives is based on an individual needs assessment that details how much care they need, how much it will cost and any personal contribution a person is expected to pay towards their care.
If a person applied before April 1993, the maximum payment is £815 per week.
If a person applied after April 1993, the maximum payment is £475 per week. 10
In 2008, the funding for the ILF was changed from a demand-led to a cash-limited basis due to the increasing number of applications to the fund; eligibility criteria were also changed to focus support on the applicants with the greatest needs. Further changes to the eligibility criteria were implemented in 2010 due to budgetary decisions taken by the previous UK Government. However, a defined increase in applications put the ILF budget under significant additional pressure and concerns emerged for the need to protect existing recipients. As a result, the trustees took the decision to permanently close the fund to new applicants. 11
Following a series of consultations and reviews in 2012, the UK Government announced that the ILF UK would permanently close, with funding for existing recipients transferred to local authorities in England and to the devolved administrations in the rest of the UK. on 30 June 2015. During this time, many disabled people raised significant concerns, including a number of legal challenges to protect the fund and the difference it made to their independence. However, the High Court and Court of Appeal upheld the DWP position that it was no longer a financially sustainable model in light of significant changes to social care policy and provision since the inception of the fund. 12
After public consultation, the NI Executive Government announced that recipients from NI who previously received funding from the ILF UK would continue to receive funds through ILF Scotland (ILFS) when it was established on 1 July 2015. The Health Minister, Mr Simon Hamilton indicated ‘my decision to implement these new arrangements is underpinned by the outcome of my Department’s public consultation on how ILF users in NI would be best supported after the closure of the ILF UK. It was clear that the majority of respondents preferred Option 2: Form a successor body’. 13
Since then ILF Scotland has continued to provide funding for people in NI, with funds administered by the same staff who administer funds for people in Scotland.14 Currently there are 448 recipients in NI15, with funding for 2018/19 financial year totalling £6.85 million.16 When ILF Scotland was set up it committed to having disabled people at the heart of everything they do. In both NI and Scotland, Stakeholder Groups were established to provide advice, direction and lived experience to help inform how the organisation should operate. Disabled recipients chair the Stakeholder Groups, which have over 30 members including recipients, award managers and other key individuals who have a primary stake in the organisation.
15 Data obtained from ILF Scotland. 15 November 2019 16 Data obtained from ILF Scotland. 11 November 2019
1.3 The role of ILFS for NI recipients
To demonstrate the role of the ILFS for people in NI, Figure 1 outlines a recipient model of independent living. Each layer of the model interacts with the other to achieve independent living and will naturally change or evolve over time.
Figure 1. ILFS Recipient Independent Living Model (a small oval named Individual is encompassed in a larger oval titled Independent Living Fund. Those ovals are both encompassed in a larger oval titled Statutory Input. Finally, the largest oval encompasses all the others. It's entitled Natural Support.
Individual: The individual is at the core of the model, represented by their personal traits and characteristics. These include physical and emotional health, support/ assistance needs and individual lifestyle preferences and choices.
Natural Support: Surrounding the individual is the naturally occurring support that is available to them. The level of natural support available to an individual is unique to their circumstances, but is often provided by parents, siblings, children, extended family, spouse/ partner, friends, neighbours and others in the community.
Statutory Input: The third layer of the model consists of the statutory input provided by HSC Trusts. In NI, social care is delivered using Self Directed Support (SDS)17, which places emphasis on promoting independence and personalisation of care, through the provision of care in the right place at the right time.18 When a HSCT assess an individual as needing personal social services, they allocate them a Personal Budget (PB). The individual has four options to choose from to decide how they will use their budget to meet their support needs.
Option 1 – Direct Payment A Direct Payment (DP) is a cash payment made to individuals or their representatives in lieu of services the HSCT would otherwise provide. People can then use this payment to fund the employment of Personal Assistants or purchase goods or services.19
19 Direct Payments have been available in NI since 1996 through the provisions of the Community Care (Direct Payments) Act (1996) later amended to include all eligible service users through the provisions of the Carers and Direct Payment Act NI (2002).
Option 2 - Managed Budget Individuals can opt to have their PB managed by a service provider of their choice. Their HSCT can arrange to make payments directly to the provider.
Option 3 - Trust Arranged Support Individuals can choose their HSCT to make the appropriate arrangements to meet their assessed care and support needs. This typically includes domiciliary services, day care and residential settings.
Option 4 - Any combination of Options 1-3 The last option is any combination of options 1-3 that are tailored to provide support appropriate to needs. For example, a DP might be used to employ a PA for support in the community, while Trust Arranged support may work better for other needs. 20
Independent Living Fund: The final layer of the model and most distant from the recipient, represents the financial input received from ILFS. Similar to a DP, the award can be used to pay for personal care and domestic assistance and aims to make a positive difference in the following key areas:
Having choice and control to manage support and lifestyle preferences.
Keeping fit and well in body and mind to maintain mental and physical health.
Keeping safe and well inside and outside of the home.
Undertaking work, learning, training, hobbies and interests.
Maintaining relationships with family, friends and the community.
Supporting informal carers to continue to provide assistance. 21
2.0 Aim
The aim of this project is to develop an evidence base that demonstrates the impact of ILFS funding for NI recipients. We place particular emphasis on how the funding facilitates independence for existing recipients, how they use their funding, and what impact this has in their daily lives. The project will also consider if and how ILFS funding indirectly benefits immediate family or primary carers and the wider community in which recipients live. Outcomes and impact for all material stakeholders (existing recipients, families, primary carers, social services and the wider community) will be thematically analysed, and then monetised and valued using Social Return on Investment (SROI) methodology.
3.0 Methodology
CILNI implemented the impact evaluation using the following six key work stages:
Stage 1: Project inception
CILNI developed the impact evaluation methodology and co-produced this in consultation with the ILFS NI Stakeholder Group to a) identify what the evaluation should consider, and b) how this could be achieved. This involved meeting with the ILFS NI Stakeholder Group, representatives from ILFS and the DoH.
Stage 2: Establishing scope and identifying stakeholders
During initial consultations, CILNI identified the need to demonstrate the direct impact of the fund for recipients’, the indirect impact for informal carers, family and the community, and to consider the broader economic and social care context in NI.
Stage 3: Stakeholder engagement to map and evidence outcomes
This stage included:
Impact survey - the administration of a co-designed impact survey exploring lived experiences of using the fund. CILNI sent an invitation to participate (Appendix 1) and survey (Appendix 2) to all 448 existing ILFS recipients. In total, 120 (27%) surveys were returned, completed by recipients (n=105), and award managers (n=15).
Personal Stories – in-depth personal accounts and descriptions of using ILFS funding. CILNI completed eleven personal stories consisting of six recipients and five award managers, who were also immediate family members.
Personal Assistants – CILNI collected quantitative data relating to PAs from the CILNI Payroll Service and from ILF Scotland. CILNI completed informal interviews with five PAs employed via the fund. Four PAs were non-family members, and one was a sibling of the recipient.
Meeting with Self Directed Support (SDS) Implementation Officers from local HSC Trusts
Stage 4: Thematic Content Analysis
This stage involved analysing the qualitative data collected from the impact surveys Thematic Content Analysis 3 and personal stories. We used Thematic Content Analysis (TCA) as a categorising strategy to develop a comprehensive, descriptive understanding of what impact the fund had, as outlined below.
Phase of Thematic Content Analysis and Description of the process
Familiarisation with data: Transcribing data (if necessary), reading and re-reading the data, noting down initial ideas.
Generate initial codes Coding interesting features of the data in a systematic fashion across the entire data set, collating data relevant to each code.
Search for themes: Collating codes into potential themes, gathering all data relevant to each potential theme.
Review themes: Checking the themes work in relation to the coded extracts (Level 1) and the entire data set (Level 2), generating a thematic ‘map’ of the analysis.
Define and name themes: On-going analysis to refine the specifics of each theme and the overall story the analysis tells, generating clear definitions and names for each theme.
Finalise themes The last opportunity for analysis. Selection of vivid, compelling extract examples, final analysis of selected extracts, relating back of the analysis to the research question and literature.
Stage 5: Social Return on Investment (SROI) analysis
We completed SROI analysis on the outcomes evidenced during Stage 3 and Stage 4 that account for stakeholders’ views of impact. It is an approach to understanding and managing the value of the social, economic and environmental outcomes created by an activity or an organisation. SROI is a framework to structure thinking and understanding, based on the following seven principles:
Principles of SROI and Details
Involve stakeholders: Understand the way in which the organisation creates change through a dialogue with stakeholders.
Understand what changes:Acknowledge and articulate all the values, objectives and stakeholders of the organisation before agreeing which aspects of the organisation are to be included in the scope; and determine what must be included in the account in order that stakeholders can make reasonable decisions.
Value what matters: Use financial proxies for indicators to include the values of those excluded from markets in same terms as used in markets.
Only include what is material: Articulate clearly how activities create change and evaluate this through the evidence gathered.
Do not over-claim: Make comparisons of performance and impact using appropriate benchmarks, targets and external standards.
Be transparent: Demonstrate the basis on which the findings may be considered accurate and honest and that they will be reported to and discussed with stakeholders.
Verify the result: Ensure appropriate independent verification of the account.
Stage 6: Disseminating and Reporting
To maximise validity and co-production, we shared findings and discussed with the ILFS NI Stakeholder Group, and individuals who contributed their personal stories. This stage involved co-developing a final report with the ILFS NI Stakeholder Group, in addition to a visual, impact card displaying the outcomes, impact and social value generated by the ILFS.
4.0 Evidencing outcomes
4.1 Survey findings
In total, we received 120 completed surveys. Initial analysis of responses indicated the fund made a difference to recipients at home (n=110), in the community (n=95), to health and emotional wellbeing (n=106), and in the areas of employment (n=8) and education (n=15). However, thematic analysis of the survey responses highlighted significant overlap within these domains. The following sub sections outline the thematic findings from the perspective of recipients, and award managers.
4.1.1 Recipients
We received 105 surveys from recipients, the majority of whom lived with parents (n=64) or alone (n=19). The youngest respondent was 29 and the oldest was 84. Most had been using the fund for 10 to 15 years (n=64). Two respondents noted they had been using the fund since its inception in 1988. Thematic analysis of the survey data produced four broad outcomes, underpinned by ten sub outcomes, as shown below. While they are detailed individually, they undoubtedly connect and resonate with each other.
Outcome: Emotional wellbeing Sub outcome: Reduced isolation, Feeling safe, Optimism and motivation, Choice and control
Outcome: Health maintenance Sub outcome: Medical / health appointments, Exercise and being active
Outcome: Sustaining natural support Sub outcome: Informal carers, Relationships
Outcome: 'Getting on with life' Sub outcome: Employment and education, Future planning
Theme: Emotional Wellbeing
The first theme to emerge from the recipient survey data was the impact the fund had on recipients’ overall emotional wellbeing. Having practical assistance that facilitated living at home, community life and in education, training or employment resulted in the improvement and sustainment of their emotional health.
Sub theme: Reduced isolation
Spending time with others was very important for recipients, for many living at home meant they could live with their family, partner/spouse or have regular contact with loved ones.
…I can spend time with my family…I would be socially isolated and lonely without this support…
Recipients had regular company from those who provided formal support, which reduced social isolation.
…my PAs keep me company…
This resulted in feelings of emotional connection and improved mood.
…knowing people are coming everyday having them to talk to and hear what’s going on…
…I suffer from depression and without carers coming in I would be alone…
Maintaining relationships that extended outside the home also contributed to feelings of wellbeing.
…I see my neighbours and friends daily…
…maintaining contact with lifelong neighbours and friends…
Additionally, social isolation was reduced through increased participation in community and social events.
…being part of the community…feeling outside connections…
…ILF helps me to access social trips and events…
Sub theme: Feeling safe
Emotional wellbeing was enhanced through the sense of safety felt while living at home.
…gives me security of knowing I am safe and in my own environment helps my emotional health…
…allows me to have a personal assistant who provides a safe environment and attends to all of my physical needs…
Having assistance when outside the home meant that recipients felt safe to be active in their community.
…my support worker helps me to take part in community events and looks after me when I’m out and about…
Sub theme: Choice and control
Using the fund improved emotional wellbeing through the choice and control it facilitated in recipients’ lives. This was evident through both living at home and the ways in which individuals’ decided to live their lives.
…I don’t want to live in an institution ILF means I can live in my own home…
…I plan my day week and year with the fund and what I’m going to do…
Sub theme: Optimism and motivation
Many recipients described how much they enjoyed living at home and the happiness they felt there.
…the pleasure of being at home…
…I enjoy being supported in my own home…
As a result, they experienced greater optimism and a positive outlook in their daily lives.
…I wake up happy and ready for my daily activities…
…I feel even with my disability, the support I get means I have a life and not only an existence. It really lifts me up and stimulated to give me purpose…
Theme: Health Maintenance
Having additional assistance benefited the health of recipients by supporting them to maintain their health needs.
Sub theme: Medication and health related appointments
Recipients described how their support ensured they were able to manage their health related medical needs.
…my staff make sure I get to all my appointments and pick up prescriptions…
…I can attend medical appointments with this assistance…
Sub theme: Exercise
Some recipients highlighted how they used the fund to keep physically healthy.
…staying fit and active…
…my PAs keep me fit…
With assistance, other recipients could attend classes and leisure centres or be active outdoors to maintain their health.
…going swimming which enables me to keep reasonably fit...
…I go to yoga and swimming once a week with my carers…
…getting out and about and being outside in the fresh air…
Theme: Sustaining natural support
We also evidenced the positive effect the fund had on the natural support networks surrounding individuals.
Sub theme: Supporting family
As many recipients lived with parents or other family members who were also informal carers, having assistance meant they could have regular breaks to rest.
…my parents get a break from looking after me…
…my sister gets time for herself…
Sub theme: Maintaining relationships
Formal assistance also resulted in less perceived dependence on support from informal carers, and maintained relationships with loved ones outside of their caring role.
…less stressed than having to depend on my parents…
…the fund means living in my own home with my wife and family. It means having quality time with them rather than worrying about taking care of me. It means a lot to me…
Theme: ‘getting on with life’
Many recipients emphasised how having the funding from the ILFS meant they could live their lives and achieve desired goals.
Sub theme: Employment and education
Those in employment or education explained how they used the fund to assist them to go to work or gain qualifications.
...my staff help me get ready for work so I can contribute to society…
…I completed my degree last year…
…I did a HND ILF helped me go to college…
Sub theme: Future planning
Part of getting on with life was being able to plan ahead; having the fund in place meant recipients could make plans and work towards goals in the future.
…I’ve planned my holiday and my support comes too…I couldn’t do that without the fund…
…I plan my day week and year with the fund and what I’m going to do…
Some recipients described their plans to pursue their education or return to work, even if that was not possible at the current moment.
…I hoping to go back to college and then work having ILF lets me plan ahead and set goals…
…ILF means I can finish my degree and I’m planning to do a Master’s…
4.1.2 Award Manager survey findings
Fifteen award managers returned completed surveys, all of whom were family members and informal carers for the recipient. Thematic analysis of the award manager survey data produced one broad outcome, underpinned by three sub outcomes, as shown below.
Outcome: Emotional wellbeing Sub outcome: Improved mood, coping, planning for the future
Theme: Emotional wellbeing
All of the award managers described how having the fund in place for either a child or sibling impacted their personal sense of wellbeing.
Sub theme: Improved mood
Improvements in mood were evident through a reduction in worry about the needs of recipients.
…it relieves me of worry as her mother…
…we know he’s safe at home and secure…
By having assistance in place, one award manager described how reduced caring responsibilities resulted in improvements in her own mental health.
…I couldn’t go back to life without ILF I had no time for me anymore and was very depressed…
Sub theme: Coping
In consideration of life without the ILFS, award managers indicated that they could not cope with their caring role.
…I don’t know how we would cope with all the support he needs everyday…
Furthermore, they felt their loved one would no longer be able to live at home without the support from the fund, as they would not be in a position to provide informal care on a longer-term basis. Having the fund in place has meant they have been able to support their loved one on a longer-term basis.
…she’d not be able to stay at home anymore…I couldn’t cope long term without ILF…
…without the help of ILF he’d have been in a home a long time ago…as a family we could not manage without ILF…
4.2 Personal story findings
Eleven individuals shared their personal stories of using the fund (recipients n=6, award managers n=5). Each illustrates how the outcomes in Section 4.1 interact with each other, and collectively over time. No two personal stories are the same, with a wide range of variation in individual characteristics including the nature of assistance needs, naturally occurring support, statutory input from HSC Trusts and the amount of funding received from ILF. However, all attribute the ILFS as an essential factor in promoting and sustaining independence in their lives, and share how important having the fund is to them.
4.2.1 Recipients
Six recipients provided their personal stories of using the fund (Appendix 3). Thematic analysis of their personal story data revealed identical findings to the survey data. However, the in-depth narratives extended the understanding of how the fund has impacted recipients over the lifetime of the award. This resulted in the inclusion of an additional outcome for recipients as shown below.
Outcome: Prevention Sub outcome: Learning to be independent, sustaining natural support and early intervention
Theme: Prevention
A clear preventative effect emerged from the data, which demonstrated how the combined impact of emotional wellbeing, health maintenance, sustaining natural support and ‘getting on with life’ prevented an overall decline in outcomes for recipients.
Sub theme: Learning to be independent
This was evident through the concept of learning to be independent, which was attributed to the ILFS funding. This facilitated a learning process in both the context of an individual’s specific condition and how they could achieve their own independence.
…it has taken time since my accident…how I used the fund then has changed as I’ve learned to be independent learning what I can and can’t do how I can do it…
…I learned to become more and more independent on my own since I left school…ILF did that it made it happen made it possible…
One recipient describes how her journey of independence began with the ILFS. This initiated a learning process that lead her to change the statutory input she received to a Direct Payment, resulting in enhanced choice and control of assistance needs.
…I started with Trust then got ILF then I changed to a Direct Payment…back then I was only beginning to understand how to be in control independent…now I manage all of it myself…I can decide to do what I want to do…
Sub theme: Resilience
Recipients demonstrated how the fund acted as a buffer or protective measure against the challenges they encounter on a daily basis.
…I’ve had to be in bed for the past nine months with pressure sores the pain is unreal really bad but ILF has meant I’m still here in my home and connected to the outside to my family friends…
…yes getting personal care and the serious part of looking after me is important but I’ll tell you what getting out and about and socialising and having something to look forward to that’s independence…it keeps me going…
Being more resilient promoted motivation and optimism to keep progressing and moving forward with their lives.
…it’s a load of cogs that work together…the ILF is a cog that keeps me striving along... …without the input from my PA I more than likely would deteriorate both physically and emotionally slowly withdrawing more and more from the world the ILF has helped open up to me… …it’s allowed me to think large…ILF allows me to think what is possible…
Sub theme: Early intervention
Four of the recipients who contributed their personal story explained they accessed the ILFS at an early stage. They describe the assistance from the fund as core to improving their health and emotional wellbeing.
…it really has been day and night! I really was reduced to a shell, the help provided by the ILF has played a major role in basically rebuilding both my health and emotional wellbeing…
…before I got ILF I was in bed for nine years and couldn’t do anything for myself…then I was able to sit in a chair and now my wheelchair I had ILF my staff to help me progress build myself up to where I’m now…
The early intervention of the fund similarly prevented a decline in health that could have resulted in not being able to live at home.
...I was in hospital for about a year after my accident then six months after I got ILF…if I hadn’t got ILF I would still be in hospital not at home…
…I had the fund in place as soon as I left school otherwise I would be isolated and institutionalised in bed…
4.2.2 Award Manager personal story findings
Five award managers provided their personal stories of using the fund (Appendix 4). Thematic analysis of their personal story data echoed the findings from their survey data; however, it further extended the interpretation and understanding of the indirect impact of the fund. This led to the addition of one more broad outcome, underpinned by three sub outcomes, as described below.
Outcome: Prevention Sub outcome: Coping, Relationships, Planning for the future
Theme: Prevention
Award managers clearly outlined how the fund had prevented a decline in the natural support surrounding the recipient.
Sub theme: Coping
Award managers described how having the fund in place meant they as informal carers were better able to cope with their role.
…I can sleep at night now a full nights’ sleep was rare before having the fund…
…it’s still hard caring at times but ILF makes it easier for us…
…I dread to think what life would be like…we’re older now and it’s harder to manage… without the fund life would be very hard for all of us…
Two award managers explained how assistance for their loved one meant they could continue to work which helped them manage psychologically.
…without ILF me and my husband couldn’t work so if he’d stayed in the day centre I would have to give up my job which is important not only financially but more psychologically than anything…
…if we didn’t have ILF I would have to give up my work to look after him…working helps me manage so things would change dramatically it wouldn’t be good…
Sub theme: Relationships
Emphasis was placed on how the fund facilitated and maintained positive relationships with loved ones.
…it gives me that opportunity to go on holiday with my daughter and bring assistance and it’s all about my daughter…she means the world to me…it contributes to our togetherness…
…when my mum died things between us just got worse and worse so when he got the fund and came back here to his home I could go back to being his sister again and doing the nice things so it’s been brilliant for both of us…
One award manager explained how the assistance for her son helped to manage his complex needs, which contributed to better relationships with other members of his family.
…as parents we are his main carers…it’s been tough looking after him as his needs are have been very complex…the fund kept our marriage together for longer so we were there for him…
Sub theme: Planning for the future
Award managers who were aging parents of recipients emphasised how the fund allowed them to think about the future and how they could best use the fund to plan ahead.
…we’re planning for his future with the fund knowing we have it he has it means we can think about what happens when we’re not here…
…we know we have the fund for our son and can make plans now and for his future…
…when my wife died she lost her mum but we had to sit down and say right what will we do now…we said we’d plan ahead and we use ILF to do that…
4.3 Personal Assistant (PA) data
Data collected from the CILNI Payroll Service, ILF Scotland and survey respondents indicated employing a PA was the preferred method of using the fund. We held informal interviews with five PAs, all of whom had been employed for more than five years, to consider the impact of the fund for them. The recipient knew two prior to their recruitment through working for a local HSC Trust or domiciliary service and two were unknown prior to appointment. The remaining PA was a family member who had been an informal carer for many years prior to their formal role. In this case, it provided an alternative career pathway following redundancy from their job. We conducted the interviews under the following key themed areas.
4.3.1 Pathway to employment
For some the PA role represented a change in career as they previously worked in community development or youth-based roles. For the new entrants to the care profession, there was a period of adjustment but with the experience gained, they now see this as their long-term career path. For others who came from another domiciliary or residential setting, it represented a transition to a working environment where they felt respected, valued and received training to facilitate on-going personal and professional development. This has engendered a professional respect and trust, which has provided continuity of employment and support for the PA and ILFS recipient respectively.
4.3.2 Training & Development
All of the contributors indicated that they received on-going training relating to the assistance needs of the ILFS recipient. This included:
Manual handling and personal care techniques, provided by both the employer and HSC Trust Occupational Therapists.
Additional training provided by the employer including supporting physical and emotional wellbeing.
4.3.3 Employee Benefits
For those that previously worked in the domiciliary sector, they identified pay and employment conditions were better in their current role. They described greater flexibility with their employer in relation to taking annual leave and working around individual and family circumstances. All have learned new skills and reported feeling greater motivation in their employment due to the variation in activities and close relationship with their clients. Some viewed their roles as part of a specialist career pathway; working as a PA represented opportunities for personal fulfilment, achievement and progression.
Additionally, PAs described how part of their role was to create opportunities for the recipient, such as finding out about new activities in the community and providing support to create new experiences. This in turn created opportunities for PAs to learn new skills and develop their knowledge of the best ways to support their client, which further extended into their employment roles with other employers.
4.3.4 Impact on ILFS Recipient
All of the PAs indicated that the one to one support provided within their role was more responsive to their client’s needs. They felt their client had progressed with PA support, and their emotional and physical well-being had stabilised or improved. All identified that the continuity in relation to personnel overtime had made a positive difference.
4.4 HSC Trust information
We gathered information on how the ILFS influenced the broader social care context in NI through discussions with two SDS Implementation Officers. They both highlighted how the fund contributes to the overall personal budget and resources for recipients and how it complements the current social care / SDS model of choice, control and flexibility.
“…when it comes to flexibility ILF is the trailblazer…”
Interestingly, they also explained how during the development and implementation of SDS across HSC Trusts, they had identified how ILFS was already achieving the ambitions of SDS; the ILFS model had provided them with opportunities to extend their understanding, learning and training provisions to HSC Trust staff.
5.0 Social Return on Invest Analysis
Social Return on Investment (SROI) is a principles-based method for measuring extra[1]financial value (such as social value not currently reflected or involved in conventional financial accounts). It can be used by any entity to evaluate impact on stakeholders, identify ways to improve performance, and enhance the performance of investments.
The SROI method as it has been standardised by the Social Value UK, provides a consistent quantitative approach to understanding and managing the impacts of a project, business, organisation, fund or policy. It accounts for stakeholders’ views of impact and puts financial ‘proxy’ values on all those impacts identified by stakeholders, which do not typically have market values.
Measuring the social and economic impact of public funded services has become increasingly important as commissioners and service providers seek to cut costs and do more with less. Although it is easy to say that a service or an organisation’s corporate social responsibility strategy does good work and has a broad reach, this can be difficult to demonstrate in a meaningful way. Measuring social impact, using tools such as SROI, is a way of understanding impact and communicating it to stakeholders.
In evaluating the social impact of projects and services, the value being saved or created can be viewed in terms of how immediate these are to selected services. Some impacts will likely confer tangible savings for beneficiaries over a short timeframe whilst others will be far less immediate. This has been collated using a Stakeholder Map, which explores the stakeholders of the ILFS, and the proposed outcomes and impact derived for each stakeholder, which are illustrated below:
Stakeholder: Recipients Outcomes – What we think will change for them: Improved mental and physical health, increased confidence and self -esteem, improved employability, improved relationships, Reduced isolation, feeling safe, Optimism and motivation, Choice and control in shaping their care package, Capacity to contribute to and participate in society. Impact – Longer term effect of the Outcome: Improved Emotional Well-Being. Health Maintenance. Sustaining Natural Supports. Independent Living – Learning to be independent.
Stakeholder: Family & Primary Carers Outcomes – What we think will change for them: Improved relationships. Reduced stress. Better off financially. Feeling valued. Impact – Longer term effect of the Outcome: Reduced pressure on parents. Planning for the Future.
Stakeholder: Northern Ireland Civic Society. Outcomes – What we think will change for them: Increased participation by ILFS recipients Increased volunteering Impact – Longer term effect of the Outcome: Growth of the Independent Living Movement in Northern Ireland.
Stakeholder: Centre for Independent Living Northern Ireland. Outcomes – What we think will change for them: Enhanced insights into ILFS policy Revenue generation & enhanced sustainability. Impact – Longer term effect of the Outcome: Increased influence in the sector
Stakeholder: Domiciliary/ Social care service providers. Outcomes – What we think will change for them: Increased customer base Impact – Longer term effect of the Outcome: On-going sustainability of services
Stakeholder: Health & Social Care Trusts Outcomes – What we think will change for them: Reduction in missed hospital and GP appointments. Reduction in crisis interventions and hospital stays. Reduction in admissions to residential care settings. Availability of ILFS has reduced pressure on HSCT budgets. Impact – Longer term effect of the Outcome: Delivery of HSCT purpose - To improve health and wellbeing and reduce health and social inequalities. Achieving HSCT vision - To continuously improve health and social care delivery and foster innovation in pursuit of this goal. We will seek to achieve the right balance between providing more health and social care in, or closer to, people’s homes 22. Effective Early Intervention.
Stakeholder: Personal Assistants Outcomes – What we think will change for them: Employment Better Off Financially. Enhanced skills & experience. Pathway to employment. Impact – Longer term effect of the Outcome: Increased pool of experienced carers with expertise in supporting Independent Living. Long-term sustainable employment.
Stakeholder: Northern Ireland Economy Outcomes – What we think will change for them: Reduced unemployment Increased economic multiplier effect Impact – Longer term effect of the Outcome: ILFS recipients gaining employment and sustaining economic activity for longer. Upskilling of a traditionally low skill sector.
5.1 Calculation Results
The social value generated by ILFS for a range of stakeholders demonstrates extended impact and value for money. The Independent Living Fund based through its £6.85 million allocation to Northern Ireland recipients in 2019 generated a social value of £1: £10.89. This is based on a Total Present Value of £74,569,097 created against the input of £6,850,000.
The calculations applied financial proxies to twenty-one outcomes for five material stakeholder groups evidenced through the primary and secondary research. Value accrued per stakeholder is segmented below.
Stakeholder: ILFS Recipients Social Value: £57,279,460 Percentage: 77%
Stakeholder: Health & Social Care Trusts (HSCTs) Social Value: £15,029,490 Percentage: 20%
Stakeholder: Personal Assistants Social Value: £1,509,353 Percentage: 2%
Stakeholder: Family/Carers Social Value: £691,969 Percentage: 0.9%
Stakeholder: Northern Ireland Civic Society Social Value: £58,825 Percentage: 0.1%
Total Social Value: £74,569,097 Percentage: 100%
The financial proxies have been chosen to best represent the value to the stakeholders. Where it has not been possible to identify a value representing the change for the stakeholder directly, other values have been considered, which include changes for other relevant stakeholders.
A graphical representation of a sum. The sum reads Financial Proxy multiplied by Quantity of the Outcome minus Deadweight, Attribution and Displacement.
The SROI ratio is calculated over 5 years to reflect the longer-term impacts that the service has on stakeholders. A discount value of 3.5% was applied over the 5-year period. This is in line with the Government’s Green Book, which requires that public money be discounted at a rate of 3.5% per annum23.
Outcomes in this context are the changes that occur over time through the interventions and services funded by ILFS. They can be measured at a variety of levels: individual, organisational and community and can be considered intentional or unintentional. Whilst deemed material to the stakeholder map in Table 1, outcomes relating to the wider Northern Ireland Economy, CILNI domiciliary and social care providers were not included in the calculations due to their negligible impact on the final SROI calculations. A full breakdown of the outcomes valued per stakeholder group is offered in Table 9.
Stakeholder: Recipient Impact Values: Improved Health & Well-Being: £24,775,772 Reduced Social Isolation: £3,039,860 Enhanced Safety & Security: £8,730,679 Increased Choice & Control: £11,305,639 Increased Physical Activity: £2,118,670 Improved Family Relationships: £3,790,396 Increased Engagement with Local Community: £2,033,668 Enhanced Contribution to Society: £1,189,726 Gaining Skills & Qualifications: £158,828 Gaining or Sustaining Employment: £136,222 Total Impact Value: £57,279,460 Percentage of Impact: 77%
Stakeholder: Health & Social Care Trusts Impact Values: Enhanced capacity to deliver purpose & vision: £5,329,579 Reduction in people going into residential care: £9,604,416 Reduced Crisis Interventions: £95,495 Total Impact Value: £15,029,490 Percentage of Impact: 20%
Stakeholder: Personal Assistants Impact Values: Better Off Financially: £358,661 Access to Quality Training Opportunities: £991,305 Reduced Stress at Work: £34,816 Improved Family Cohesion: £124,571 Total Impact Value: £1,509,353 Percentage of Impact: 2%
Stakeholder: Family/Carers Impact Values: Reduction in Stress & Anxiety of Parents: £354,787 Family Members Feel More Valued: £52,561 Carers are Better Off Financially: £284,621 Total Impact Value: £691,969 Percentage of Impact: 0.9%
Stakeholder: Northern Ireland Civic Society Impact Values: Stronger Independent Living Movement: £58,825 Total Impact Value: £58,825 Percentage of Impact: 0.1%
Total: £74,569,097 = 100%
5.2 Financial Proxies used
Financial Proxies and sources used for the calculations included:
Financial Proxy; Relief from depression/anxiety (£36,766)
Financial Proxy; Value of Social networks and involvement - £4,511
The value of increased frequency of interaction with friends, relatives & neighbours- £7,750 (Putting a Price Tag on Friends, Relatives, and Neighbours (Institute of Education, University of London April 2007) £15,500 adjusted for inflation)
Financial Proxy; Feeling safe at home - £12,274
Financial Proxy; Feeling in Control of Life - £15,894
The average cost of residential home fees in Northern Ireland came in at £516 per week during 2016-2017, according to Which? Elderly Care. (See note 4.) Meanwhile, the average cost of a nursing care home came in at £670 per week.
It is necessary to “discount” the values generated by each of the financial proxies used in order to reduce the risk of over claiming. The following considerations were accounted for in the discounting of the ILFS funding:
Deadweight: Assesses how much of each of the outcomes would have happened anyway, without the services funded by the ILFS i.e. the extent that recipients would have accessed independent living support to enable them to remain in their own homes in the absence of the ILFS.
Displacement: An assessment of how much of each of the outcomes displaced other activities or outcomes that would otherwise have occurred. Such as statutory services funded through Self Directed Support.
Attribution: An assessment of how much of each of the outcomes was generated by the contributions of other organisations or people such as considering, the role of peers, family members and other supports accessed from community, voluntary or statutory services.
Drop-off: In future years, beyond the initial year in question, the amount of each outcome that can be directly attributed to the project will be reduced as it becomes more influenced by other factors.
While there is a likelihood that through SDS some of the health and well-being outcomes may have been achieved, it is evident from current statutory funding levels and policy priorities that equivalent levels of funding to the ILFS allocation to support independent living in the community would not have been made available. Given this analysis, we attributed low levels of deadweight to the calculations and found that:
Low levels of displacement (5-10%) of other services have been included in the calculations. There is no robust evidence base emerging that ILFS has displaced other domiciliary or home-based services rather the contrary in that it has strengthened existing care packages and added an independent living dimension.
Reduced isolation, improved family relationships and increased capacity to contribute to their local community and wider society are among the outcomes reported by participants through the questionnaire survey and personal stories. This indicates that in the absence of ILFS there would not have been sufficient community or voluntary services or inputs from family available to achieve similar outcomes for recipients. We have therefore apportioned high levels of attribution (70-80%) for ILFS to the achievement of recipient outcomes.
The SROI ratio is calculated over 5 years to reflect the longer-term impacts the service has on stakeholders and how this would be affected if the fund were no longer available. Given the complex needs of many recipients, the drop off in impact would be in the range of 20-50% in years 2-5.
5.4 Sensitivity Analysis
Given that the analysis contains estimations and assumptions, it is prudent to review where these decisions have had a significant effect on the overall SROI calculation and to consider, therefore, the assurance that can be placed on such figures.
However, as an evaluative analysis, the Study contains confirmed data regarding ILFS funded outputs. The research makes extrapolated assumptions on the numbers affected based on the data collated through the desktop review process and the mixed method consultations with participants, employers and stakeholders.
The sensitivity analysis explores the impact on the SROI ratio of changing some of the study’s key assumptions. Discount rates thought to be significant were amended to clarify the impact of changing attribution, deadweight or displacement.
Outcome values generated from research methods were adjusted to determine the impact of changing values, given that consultation results were extrapolated over the full stakeholder group.
This sensitivity analysis did not significantly alter the final calculations, which are considered assured.
6.0 Discussion
The aim of the impact evaluation was to create an evidence base that could demonstrate what impact the ILFS has for recipients by considering how the funding facilitates independence, how funding is used and what impact this has in their daily lives. The project also sought to evidence how ILFS funding indirectly impacts immediate family or informal carers, and the wider community in which recipients live.
6.1 Direct Impact
Based on the data provided by recipients, the fund has clearly achieved its original aims to make a positive difference to their lives. Recipients in their own words, describe the fund as essential to their emotional wellbeing, health maintenance, exercise and being active, sustaining natural support, and ‘getting on with life’. Collectively, over time, these impacts have had a powerful preventative effect and for some, the fund acted as an early intervention during critical transitions in their lives.
Interestingly, at an early stage of data collection, recipients introduced the concept of learning to be independent, describing independence as a process rather than an event. Having the fund for an extended period has facilitated their journey of independence by giving them time to explore, test and understand what independence means for them.
Recipients directly attribute these outcomes to the ILFS. With no known publicly available literature to suggest the fund was set up as a preventative measure, this impact alone demonstrates how the ILFS has achieved considerably more than its initial intentions. It cannot be underestimated what this means to recipients, who consider life without the fund as comparable to death.
6.2 Indirect Impact
The findings indicate the primary indirect impact of the fund related the naturally occurring support systems surrounding recipients, who were typically family members. Recipients identified that the assistance they used the fund to pay for meant informal carers could have regular breaks from their caring role. The award managers described how the assistance from the fund had a positive effect on their emotional wellbeing and importantly sustained the natural contexts of their relationships as parent and child, or sister and brother.
As PAs were the preferred choice to meet assistance needs amongst recipients and award managers, the evidence gathered suggests they were indirectly impacted by the fund because it not only created employment opportunities within the community, but was also the preferred option for PAs in comparison to other types of caring career options. They describe a reciprocal relationship with their employer, better rates of pay, and professional development opportunities. They also highlighted the personal fulfilment and motivation they felt within their role.
The impact evaluation has provided some evidence that suggests another indirect impact of the ILFS is how it facilitated a learning process for HSC Trusts, particularly in relation to the implementation of SDS. While it was only possible to collect limited data, the information provided demonstrates a positive influence on the broader social care context in NI.
Furthermore, evidence emerged which suggests that ILFS funding has indirectly impacted the ILM as a whole. The ILM has strongly advocated for resources to be provided in ways that enable people to have choice and control over their support and lifestyle choices; the evaluation demonstrates why this model of resource provision works. Even in the presence of the highest level of assessed support needs, independence can be achieved and sustained over an extended period. Assistance has reduced some of the practical barriers disabled people face on a daily basis, and in line with the ILM, people are living their lives with choice and control, are present and active in their communities, with some of the recipients in this evaluation using their funding to actively campaign for the rights of people with a disability.
6.3 Extended impact
The social value generated by ILFS for a range of stakeholders demonstrates extended impact and value for money. While ILFS recipients accrue the greatest value, the £15,029,490 value for Health & Social Care Trusts is particularly noteworthy given current pressures on budgets.
The biggest contributor to this figure for HSCT’s is the savings accrued through reduced admissions to residential care facilities. In excess of 90% of recipients who responded to the questionnaire felt that in the absence of ILFS funding they would have had to move into residential care, providing further evidence of the preventative effect
The SROI findings augment the evidence base for the impact of ILFS in two key areas namely, the outcomes achieved for recipients and external stakeholders and value for money.
6.4 Limitations
Limitations of the impact evaluation relate to the sample size. While 27% of the NI ILFS recipient/award manager population contributed to the project, without data from all 448 recipients/award managers, it is not possible to conclude everyone has had the same experience as detailed in the findings. This is also reflected in the SROI findings where we have made conservative assumptions based on the sample size and aggregation across the total ILFS recipient/award manager population. However, it is worth considering the high level of positive outcomes reported, and the complete absence of less than favourable findings typically anticipated in any form of evaluation.
6.5 Points for consideration
Based on the findings of the impact evaluation, the ILFS has achieved considerably more than its initial intentions, which strongly support the NI Executive Government decision to retain the fund in its original form. The direct, indirect and extended impact of the fund emphasises the importance of the current scoping exercise to examine if and how the fund could reopen to new applicants. Additionally, with no known publicly available literature to suggest the fund was set up as a preventative measure, ILFS may wish to consider how this can be further evaluated and utilised as an invaluable learning resource for the broader social care and independent living contexts
7.0 Appendices
Appendix 1 Invitation to participate
Dear
I am writing to let you know about an evaluation exercise that we, in collaboration with the Department of Health, have asked the Centre for Independent Living Northern Ireland (CILNI) to carry out.
The aim of the evaluation is establish the impact of ILF awards on the lives of recipients in Northern Ireland. The information obtained from the evaluations will help inform the Department of Health's early exploratory and scoping work in connection with the feasibility of re-opening the ILF Fund in Northern Ireland. Such a decision will of course be for a future Health Minister to consider.
A potentially transformative part of this evaluation exercise will be the results of a survey that CILNI has created to gather the views of those who already receive ILF Funding. You will find the survey enclosed with this letter. To take part please complete this survey and return it in the reply paid envelope, which as been supplied for you. You do not need to use a stamp to post this.
The survey is fully anonymous and provides you with the opportunity to express your personal experiences of receiving ILF Funding. Participation is optional and it will have no impact on your award. Your personal feedback to CILNI is very important and will assist with work currently being undertaken by the Department of Health in respect of the feasibility of re-opening the fund.
In the event that a future decision is taken to re-open the fund in Northern Ireland, it will mean that a greater number of disabled people in Northern Ireland will have an opportunity to directly benefit from ILF funding. The evaluation exercise is an important part of the work already underway and I would urge you to play your part by completing the survey and availing of this opportunity to have your say.
If you have concerns or questions about the survey, please contact:
Dr Emma O'Neill Research and Policy Officer Centre for Independent Living Northern Ireland Phone: 028 37522282 Option 3 Ext 243 Web: www.cilni.org Email: emma@cilni.org
If you do have any questions about this letter, please do not hesitate to contact us on 0300 200 2022 or via the enquiries@ilf.scot email address.
Thank you.
Yours faithfully
Peter Scott Chief Executive Officer
Appendix 2 - Impact Survey
Thank you for agreeing to take part in this project and for completing our survey. We would like to reassure you that completing the survey will in no way affect your ILFS award, and you can withdraw from the project at any stage without having to give a reason.
The following questions are designed to explore your experiences of using the funding as either an ILFS recipient, or on behalf of the person whose award you manage. There are no right or wrong answers and you can continue your answers on a separate sheet of paper if necessary.
Please complete and return by 8th December 2019
1.0 About you (please tick)
Are you: Male Female
How old are you? ________ years
Who do you live with? Parents Partner / Spouse Other family Friends Paid support worker Alone
What best describes your health condition or disability? Please tick all that apply. Physical Visual Hearing Learning Speech / Communication Mental / Emotional If you would prefer to describe your health condition or disability, please do so below:
2.0 About your ILFS Award
How long have you received your ILFS award? ______ years
How do you use your ILFS Award? Please tick all that apply. To employ a Personal Assistant (s) Use an agency or service provider Other: Please comment
3.0 About Independent Living
3.1 What does Independent Living mean to you? Please describe in your own words.
3.2 How does your ILFS award contribute to your independence? Please describe in your own words
3.3 What difference does it make to your life in the following areas? Please describe in your own words
At home:
In your community:
Your health and emotional wellbeing:
Education, training and employment:
What would life be like if you did not receive an ILFS Award? Please describe in your own words.
Thank you for completing our survey and sharing your experiences of using an ILFS award.
If you would like to take part in the Personal Story section of our project, please leave your contact details below and someone will be in touch to arrange to meet with you.
Name: Address: Postcode: Telephone: Email:
Appendix 3 - Recipient personal stories
PS01
Sean is a 48 year old man who lives alone. In 2007, he was involved in a life changing accident, which resulted in tetraplegia, a form of paralysis. He accessed the ILFS six months after he was discharged from hospital in 2008 and has remained in his own home since then. He enjoys spending time with his family and friends and has a keen interest in sports, computers and films. He uses the fund to employ one PA who is also a childhood friend and receives assistance from his HSC Trust domiciliary services.
Independence is:
…having assistance to stay at home…being here…it’s the small things that seem small but
matter very much…
ILFS contributes to my independence:
…I’ve did a few courses ECDL Stages 1, 2 and 3…ILF funding meant I had a carer back then when I was there…I’ve been bed bound since March 2019 so using computers is very important to me…I can do things online…it’s my independence…
…I was a very active person I played hurling, soccer, golf and interested in everything…when the accident happened it was very hard not to get to those things…with ILF it has helped me massively with this to get to games it’s been great…
…it has taken time since my accident…how I used the fund then has changed as I’ve learned to be independent learning what I can and can’t do how I can do it…
…it’s taken a strain off the family…it gives relief to my mum or my sister…
If there was no ILFS:
…I would be in hospital not at home…life would be impossible absolutely impossible…it’s actually scary to think about it…it’s as important as having food to survive…
…it’s a load of cogs that work together…the ILF is a cog that keeps me striving along...without it your day wouldn’t start…
PS02
Bill is 40 years old and lives with his parents. He has a condition that impacts his speech and uses a wheelchair to assist with mobility. His award from ILFS was in place for his discharge from hospital at nineteen and he also uses a Direct Payment to employ a small team of PAs. Bill enjoys computer technology, socialising and spending time with his family.
Independence is:
…unfortunately I am quite dependant on others but when I am facilitated to do something independently it means so much. When something is difficult/impossible to do it is all too easy to not even bother trying and over time that attitude only gets worse…
ILFS contributes to my independence:
…it really has been day and night! When I first took ill I really was reduced to a shell, the help provided by the ILF has played a major role in basically rebuilding both my health and emotional wellbeing…
…support provided by the ILF helps me take part in and play a larger role in family life it has also greatly reduced the load on my parents…
…with my ILF funded PA I am able to participate in many different social activities (shopping, concerts, meals with friends etc.). Apart from keeping the mind and body more active, this has helped me maintain friendships and even develop new ones...
…at one stage I took a short web design course I completed the course but it had quite a negative effect on me physically I became tight/shaky. At least with the ILF I know that option is there…
If there was no ILFS:
…not really something I want to think about! I believe I would be a different person, without the input from my PA I more than likely would deteriorate both physically and emotionally slowly withdrawing more and more from the world the ILFS has helped open up to me…
…the strain on my parents caring for me 24/7 could and probably would become too much. I can see myself having to leave my home and move into a nursing home…
…it would be a life but it wouldn’t be living…
PS05
Pam is 37 years old and lives with her parents. As a young teenager, she became unwell with ME and was bedbound at home for nine years. As a result of her condition, Pam is blind and has severe muscle weakness with paralysis. She recently completed a degree, receiving first class honours and is currently pursuing postgraduate education. She loves music, dancing, shopping, socialising and family time. Pam has used the ILFS funding for 10 years and together with a Direct Payment employs a team of ten PAs.
Independence is:
…I can do my own thing when I want to…your own decisions in your own life…
…not having to answer to anyone…
…yes getting personal care and the serious part of looking after me is important but I’ll tell you what getting out and about and socialising and having something to look forward that’s independence…it keeps me going…
ILFS contributes to my independence:
…before I got ILF I was in bed for nine years and couldn’t do anything for myself…then I was able to sit in a chair and now my wheelchair I had ILF my staff to help me progress build myself up to where I’m now…
…yes there are still things I can’t do but ILF lets me push the boundaries I can work the carers around me…I can do what I want in my day…
…ILF helped me complete my degree…my PAs read my notes to me…I’m doing a Master’s next year I can plan to do that with ILF because I know I have it there to support me…
…there’s laughter in the house…I’m happier so Mum’s happier…
…I started with the Trust and then got ILF then I changed to a Direct Payment…back then I was only beginning to understand how to be in control independent…now I manage all of it myself…I can decide to do what I want to do…
If there was no ILFS:
…that thought scares the life out of me…I know I would fall into a depressive state…
…the alternative is being in a home…I’d just be sitting there…I’d have no life…
PS09
Eddie is 38 and lives with friends. He is originally from Germany and has lived in NI since 2003. Following a serious accident in 2004, he has spinal injuries including paralysis and reduced mobility. He has used the ILFS for 13 years and receives a Direct Payment from his local HSC Trust that he uses to employ three PAs. Prior to his accident, Eddie was studying to become a Sports Coach at university, which he later completed. He is an avid sports fan and loves socialising and travelling.
Independence is:
…deciding what I want to do on a daily basis…living a normal life and being part of my community…
…if you want freedom you have to work for it…I work for my independence I work the fund for my independence…
ILFS contributes to my independence:
…it makes life easier…after my accident it helped me retain my routine it gave me my life back…when I got the fund at the start it was like okay now I can live my life…I was no longer tied down…
…everyone needs something to get them up in the morning…having ILF gives me something to get up for every morning…it makes me feel better…
…with Trust help it was in and out rushing to be done and gone…it made me feel very uncomfortable and worse about my condition…you feel like a product…now I employ my PAs to help me live my life…
…it’s hard to accept your disability so to be out and about and you have something to look forward to it makes you a part of the social lifestyle you had before…
…they (PAs) drove me to university they looked out for me and took me home…I couldn’t do that on my own…they put the smile back on my face…
…I have already made arrangements to go on holiday and have been before and take my PAs…with Trust carers I wouldn’t be able to do that…
…the difficulties will always be there but I now see a way through it…
If there was no ILFS:
…I would rather be dead if I didn’t have ILF being in an institution…it wouldn’t be worth getting out of bed in the morning…
…it would be like going back in time…I can’t think of it now what it was like back then in that time…I’ve got used now to fresh air…there wouldn’t be anything to look forward to…having my life back means everything to me…
PS10
Stephen is 66 and lives alone. He has a progressive physical condition that has resulted in severe weakening and breakdown of his muscles. Currently he employs three full-time and four part-time PAs and arranges his assistance using a combination of HSC Trust domiciliary services, a Direct Payment and has used the ILFS funding for twenty years. Stephen holds a Master’s degree and has a keen interest in human rights and the policies and practices of bodies that affect the lives of disabled people. An active member of the Independent Living Movement in NI; when not working he enjoys reading, music, going to the pub, cinema, theatre, dining out with friends and just being out and about in the open air.
Independence is:
…to have just as much choice and control over my life as any non-disabled person…
ILFS contributes to my independence:
…the Independent Living Fund gives me a life a worth living…it gives me control over my life…
…my PAs can do more for me than domiciliary care workers can……there’s no you can only do this you can only do that the way it is with care company staff… with my PAs it’s very flexible around what I’m doing…it’s allowed me to do broader stuff that I wouldn’t otherwise be able to do…
…it’s vital to me…it’s given me the flexibility to do the things I want to do but I’ve also learned a lot over the time I’m using it…
…I’ve done a lot of campaigning fighting for things for people like me that wouldn’t couldn’t have happened without ILF…
…it’s allowed me to think large…ILF allows me to think what is possible…I did a master’s degree and ILF definitely helped I couldn’t have done it without ILF…it enabled me to succeed…
…ILF is much more fluid and flexible in the way it’s managed and they allow people to be people and live their lives…
…the most recent report from my consultant refers to the fact that given my particular condition I am in remarkably good nick…in no short measure much of this is directly due to the Award…
If there was no ILFS:
…I would be dead…that’s physical and psychological…
…I wouldn’t get the right support that I need for my condition agency care workers wouldn’t support me in the way I need they have their own rules and ideas about how I am supported…
PS11
Marie is 29 years old and lives with her parents. She was born with a condition that affects her muscle strength and has a hearing impairment. Marie is one of the youngest ILFS recipients in NI and alongside using a Direct Payment, she manages a team of twelve PAs, which includes two family members. She has an undergraduate degree, recently completed her Master’s degree and is considering further education. Currently Marie works in policy and campaigns; when not studying or working, she likes to watch sports and films, travelling and socialising with family and friends.
Independence is:
…ability to do what I want when I want… live on my own schedule…
…expression of self-identity…
ILFS contributes to my independence:
…I’ve independence from family members…my PAs give me the ability to integrate with community activities…
…I went to university…without ILF I would not be as qualified or in employment…
…I learned to become more and more independent on my own as I grew up when I left school…ILF did that it made it happen made it possible…
…it gives me freedom to be who you are it’s essential for mental and emotional wellbeing…
If there was no ILFS:
… involvement in community and society would be impossible without ILF…
…I would be isolated and institutionalised in bed…I would only exist…
Appendix 4 - Award Manager personal stories
PS03
John is 84 and manages the ILFS award on behalf of his daughter Susan, who is 69. Susan was born with learning difficulties and has regular seizures; she has always lived with her parents but sadly, her mum passed away over 10 years ago. Alongside using the fund, she attends a local day centre for three days per week. They have been using the fund for over 20 years and currently employ two PAs who are extended family members. Susan likes to spend time with her friends at the day centre, shopping, socialising and going on holiday with her dad. John is retired but enjoys gardening, sports and travel.
Independence is:
…having a life…
ILFS contributes to my independence:
…it gives me that opportunity to go on holiday with my daughter and bring assistance and it’s all about my daughter…that’s independence…
…when she’s out with the carers shopping and socialising she’s learning new skills…she’s enjoying herself…
…she’s here at home and she has all her things here so it’s good…I think it’s a brilliant thing…she means the world to me…it contributes to our togetherness…
…when my wife died she lost her mum but we had to sit down and say right what will we do now…we said we’d plan ahead and we use ILF to do that…
If there was no ILFS:
…respite wouldn’t work we tried that before…I would be too worried about her and she didn’t like it…
PS04
Anna is mum to Katie who is 42 years old. As a young child, doctors discovered that the right side of her brain was not functioning as it should which resulted in learning, physical and sensory difficulties. Anna manages the fund on behalf of Katie, which she has received for 17 years. They use the fund to employ two PAs who are extended family members, receives assistance from HSC Trust domiciliary services and Katie attends her local day centre five days per week. She loves going for drives in the car, feeding birds, meeting friends and dining out.
Independence is:
…it means my daughter can live at home where she feels safe and loved…
ILFS contributes to my independence:
…having the ILF fund is brilliant because I can get the girls (PAs) up whenever I need them…they take her away out in the car…they sit with her when we go out…they’re brilliant with her…
…they do the things she wants to do…the relationship she has with the girls is very special…we feel content when she’s away out with them and they’re very very good to her…
…she loves getting out with the girls loves it…she really looks forward to getting out and is so happy when she comes home…
If there was no ILFS:
…I dread to think what life would be like…we’re older now and it’s harder to manage…without the fund life would be very hard for all of us…
…if she was in a home it would be terrible for her and for us…really terrible…I hate to think about what that would be like if we didn’t have the fund to keep her here…it would break my heart it really would…having the fund means so much…
PS05
Sheena manages an ILFS award on behalf of her son Martin, who is 47. Martin was born with Deletion 36 Syndrome that impacts learning, speech/communication and his physical and mental/emotional health. They have used the fund for 20 years to employ PAs, alongside a Direct Payment and HSC Trust domiciliary services. Martin attends his local day centre one day per week and likes to dine out, go to the leisure centre and be active outdoors.
Independence is:
…it gives him his freedom…independence from his parents...
ILFS contributes to my independence:
…being out and about, swimming, eating out, complementary therapies, clubs…his needs are met first and foremost and that’s what it’s all about…it’s his needs and making his life as pleasant as possible for him…
…before we got ILF my son was in a day centre full time…it was a horrible place…when he came home he needed time on his own in another room and was very withdrawn…the difference now because we have things in place it was so noticeable when he was out of the day centre but other people noticed too…they couldn’t get over how good he was doing…
If there was no ILFS:
…without ILF me and my husband couldn’t work so if he’d stayed in the day centre I would have to give up my job which is important not only financially but more psychologically than anything…
…I just couldn’t cope with it…he would not have survived so it’s been a life saver for him and for me…
PS06
Siobhan manages an ILFS award on behalf of her son Joe, who is 35. Joe previously lived with his parents and siblings but recently moved into his own home in the community. He was born with complex health needs including, physical, learning, visual, hearing, speech and communication challenges. They have used the fund for 13 years, alongside a Direct Payment and HSC Trust services. Joe enjoys living in his own home and likes to spend time with family, friends, travelling and shopping.
Independence is:
…its quality of life…
…he has more control over his life not just his disability…
ILFS contributes to my independence:
…it keeps him alive…
…he’s been able to move into his own home… it has helped him progress into independent living in our community…
…as parents we are his main carers…it’s been tough looking after him as his needs are have been very complex…the fund kept our marriage together for longer so we were there for him…
…before the ILF my own health deteriorated I had a nervous breakdown…I’m better now getting better…
…before he had no quality only 5 days day care it was the only choice he was given until the social worker said there was ILF…now his life has expanded he does everything shopping travel his health care needs and appointments…
…I can sleep at night now a full nights’ sleep was rare before having the fund…
…it’s still hard caring at times but ILF makes it easier for us…
…we’re planning for his future with the fund knowing we have it he has it means we can think about what happens when we’re not here…
If there was no ILFS:
…he would have no life anymore…I don’t know how I’d cope my health would deteriorate…
…day care isn’t suitable…he needs more to have his own life but we couldn’t do it on our own…
PS07
Janet is sister to Manus who is 53 years old; he lives in his childhood family home with another childhood friend. Manus was born with learning difficulties, autism and mental health needs so Janet manages his ILFS award on his behalf. He has received the ILFS for 12 years, and alongside a Direct Payment, they use the fund to pay for the services of a local agency that provide a team of support staff to assist Manus to live independently. He enjoys drawing, clothes shopping and spending time with family and friends. Both Janet and Manus took part in their personal story of using the fund.
Independence is:
…independence from my family and makes me feel like an adult…
…being able to stay in my family home…
ILFS contributes to my independence:
…when my mum died things between us just got worse and worse so when he got the fund and came back here to his home I could go back to being his sister again and doing the nice things so it’s been brilliant for both of us…
…when everything was set up this became a model home that the Trust used to come to and show others how it can be done because it works so well…
…I look forward to seeing them (support staff ) coming in…I have fun with them they’re kind to me…
…as his sister I’m very happy with it all he has an awful lot going on and his medication has a major effect on him with all his health problems they’re on top of it there’s no nonchalance with them…
…what he has here now is on a power with what he had when we all lived together as a family growing up…the stimulation is almost the same as when we looked after him…his life has been able to continue…
…he’s totally content here and that means so much to the two of us…ILF works so well…it’s miraculous I never thought it could be so good it’s not like care it’s more than that…
If there was no ILFS:
…he would most likely be in a residential home for special needs…he wouldn’t get the individual attention and care he receives at home…
…I can’t imagine where his emotional feelings would be if he had to move from home…
…if we didn’t have ILF I would have to give up my work to look after him…working helps me manage so things would change dramatically it wouldn’t be good…
Appendix 5 - SROI Impact Map
Can be viewed as a separate document.
If you require this document in an alternative format please contact us using the details below:
CILNI Head Office Linden House Beechill Business Park 96 Beechill Road, Belfast BT8 7QN Telephone: 028 9064 8546 Email: info@cilni.org
ILF Scotland Limited is a company limited by guarantee registered in Scotland Company Number SC500075. Registered office St Andrews House, Edinburgh, EH1 3DG CILNI is a charitable company limited by guarantee NI 058552. Registered with the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland NIC 100690.
ILF Scotland is committed to providing high-quality customer services.
We value complaints and use information from them to help us improve our services
1. If something goes wrong or you are dissatisfied with our services, please tell us. This leaflet describes our complaints procedure and how to make a complaint. It also tells you about how we will handle your complaint and what you can expect from us.
What is a complaint?
2. We regard a complaint as any expression of dissatisfaction about our action or lack of action, or about the standard of service provided by us or on our behalf.
What can I complain about?
3. You can complain about things like:
failure or refusal to provide a service
inadequate quality or standard of service, or an unreasonable delay in providing a service
dissatisfaction with one of our policies or its impact on the individual
failure to properly apply law, procedure or guidance when delivering services
failure to follow the appropriate administrative process
conduct, treatment by or attitude of a member of staff
disagreement with a decision, (except where there is a statutory procedure for challenging that decision, or an established appeals process followed throughout the sector).
4. Your complaint may involve more than one ILF Scotland service or be about someone working on our behalf.
What can’t I complain about?
5. There are some things we can’t deal with through our complaints handling procedure. These include:
a routine first-time request for a service
a request for compensation only
issues that are in court or have already been heard by a court or a tribunal (if you decide to take legal action, you should let us know as the complaint cannot then be considered under this process)
disagreement with a decision where there is a statutory procedure for challenging that decision (such as for freedom of information and subject access requests), or an established appeals process followed throughout the sector
a request for information under the Data Protection or Freedom of Information (Scotland) Acts
a grievance by a staff member or a grievance relating to employment or staff recruitment
a concern raised internally by a member of staff (which was not about a service they received, such as a whistleblowing concern)
a concern about a child or an adult’s safety
an attempt to reopen a previously concluded complaint or to have a complaint reconsidered where we have already given our final decision
abuse or unsubstantiated allegations about our organisation or staff; or
a concern about the actions or service of a different organisation, where we have no involvement in the issue (except where the other organisation is delivering services on our behalf).
6. If other procedures or rights of appeal can help you resolve your concerns, we will give information and advice to help you.
Who can complain?
7. Anyone who receives, requests or is directly affected by our services can make a complaint to us. This includes the representative of someone who is dissatisfied with our service (for example, a relative, friend, advocate or adviser). If you are making a complaint on someone else’s behalf, you will normally need their written consent. Please also read the section on Getting help to make your complaint below.
How do I complain?
8. You can complain in person at our offices, by phone, in writing or by email using the contact details below.
9. It is easier for us to address complaints if you make them quickly and directly to the service concerned. So please talk to a member of our staff at the service you are complaining about. Then they can try to resolve the issue.
12. Normally, you must make your complaint within six months of the event you want to complain about or finding out that you have a reason to complain.
13. In exceptional circumstances, we may be able to accept a complaint after the time limit. If you feel that the time limit should not apply to your complaint, please tell us why.
What happens when I have complained?
14. We will always tell you who is dealing with your complaint. Our complaints procedure has two stages.
Stage one: Frontline response
15. We aim to respond to complaints quickly (where possible, when you first tell us about the issue). This could mean an on-the-spot apology and explanation if something has clearly gone wrong, or immediate action to resolve the problem.
16. We will give you our decision at stage one in five working days or less, unless there are exceptional circumstances.
17. If you are not satisfied with the response we give at this stage, we will tell you what you can do next. If you choose to, you can take your complaint to stage two. You must normally ask us to consider your complaint at stage two either:
within six months of the event you want to complain about or finding out that you have a reason to complain or
within two months of receiving your stage one response (if this is later).
18. In exceptional circumstances, we may be able to accept a stage two complaint after the time limit. If you feel that the time limit should not apply to your complaint, please tell us why.
Stage two: investigation
19. Stage two deals with two types of complaint: where the customer remains dissatisfied after stage one and those that clearly require investigation, and so are handled directly at this stage. If you do not wish your complaint to be handled at stage one, you can ask us to handle it at stage two instead.
20. When using stage two:
we will acknowledge receipt of your complaint within three working days
we will confirm our understanding of the complaint we will investigate and what outcome you are looking for
we will try to resolve your complaint where we can (in some cases we may suggest using an alternative complaint resolution approach, such as mediation) and
where we cannot resolve your complaint, we will give you a full response as soon as possible, normally within 20 working days.
21. If our investigation will take longer than 20 working days, we will tell you. We will tell you our revised time limits and keep you updated on progress.
What if I’m still dissatisfied?
22. After we have given you our final decision, if you are still dissatisfied with our decision or the way we dealt with your complaint, you can ask the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO) / Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman (NIPSO) to look at it.
23. The SPSO / NIPSO are independent organisations that investigate complaints. You can ask the SPSO / NIPSO to look at your complaint if:
you have gone all the way through ILF Scotland’s complaints handling procedure
it is less than 12 months after you became aware of the matter you want to complain about; and
the matter has not been (and is not being) considered in court.
27. We understand that you may be unable or reluctant to make a complaint yourself. We accept complaints from the representative of a person who is dissatisfied with our service. We can take complaints from a friend, relative, or an advocate, if you have given them your consent to complain for you.
28. You may wish to get independent support or advocacy to help you progress your complaint. You can find out about advocates in your area by contacting the Scottish Independent Advocacy Alliance, tel: 0131 510 9410, website: www.siaa.org.uk.
29. You can find out about advisers in your area through Citizens Advice Scotland, website: www.cas.org.uk or check your phone book for your local citizens advice bureau.
30. We are committed to making our service easy to use for all members of the community. In line with our statutory equalities’ duties, we will always ensure that reasonable adjustments are made to help you access and use our services. If you have trouble putting your complaint in writing, or want this information in another language or format, such as large font, or Braille, please tell us in person, contact us on 0300 200 2022 or email us on enquiries@ilf.scot.
Quick guide to our complaints procedure
Complaints procedure
You can make your complaint in person, by phone, by email or in writing. We will always try to deal with your complaint quickly. But if we think we need to investigate, we will tell you and update you on our progress.
We have a two-stage complaints procedure.
Stage One: Frontline response
We will respond to your complaint within five working days if we can.
If you are dissatisfied with our response, you can ask us to consider your complaint at stage two.
Stage Two: Investigation
We will look at your complaint at this stage if you are dissatisfied with our response at stage one. Or if it is clear that we need to investigate.
We will acknowledge your complaint within three working days.
We will investigate the complaint and give you our decision as soon as possible but within 20 working daysunless we need more time.
Public Sector Ombudsman
If you remain dissatisfied with our final decision or about the way we have handled your complaint, you can ask the SPSO or the NIPSO to consider our handling of your complaint.
ILF Scotland is a company limited by guarantee, registered in Scotland, Company Number: SC500075. Registered office: Denholm House, Almondvale Business Park, Almondvale Way, Livingston, EH54 6GA
