Date Created: 19 December 2017
Date Reviewed: 29 March 2021
Next Review: 31 March 2022
ILF Scotland will evaluate all application forms and will follow this process below:
On receipt of an application to the ILF Transition Fund, ILF Scotland will log the application and confirm the date of receipt.
ILF Scotland will then verify the identity of the applicant and confirm that the application meets all eligibility criteria. We will do this through evidence of National Insurance number and receipt of DLA or PIP. If applicants do not receive this, they can provide a letter of confirmation of their disability or impairment from someone who knows them well and have been in contact during the last 12 months.
This could be a professional support worker / social worker / teacher or careers advisor or healthcare staff. (Please see Policy TF01) Once ILF Scotland completes the verification process, it will check that it contains all of the information needed to evaluate the application. We will contact applicants to seek clarification or additional, necessary, information if we need it.
There are three outcomes of these stages:
If we need further information / clarification we will contact the applicant by telephone, email or, if necessary, by a visit. The aim of this is to gather any missing information we need to develop a clear understanding of what the applicant would like to achieve. We would like all applicants to be fully involved in developing their plan and while we cannot offer support to write an application form, we are able to help the applicant to articulate their personal goals/outcomes and how they might develop their plan to achieve these.
ILF Scotland will have full regard to the support that a person might need where the applicant lacks capacity, in line with the policy intention of TF06.
Once ILF Scotland has the necessary information, it will evaluate applications using a ‘success rating model’.
This model asks eight questions, each rated from 1-5 (with 5 being the highest rating). ILF Scotland will rate each of the eight questions on the strength of evidence provided in the application form (see table below).
ILF Scotland will apply additional weighting to questions one and two to allow it to prioritise applications where the young person is clearly leading the application.
The impact score and effectiveness score are multiplied together to get an ‘overall success rating’:
Impact Score (1-5) x Effectiveness Score (1-5) = Overall Success Rating (1-25).
ILF Scotland will rank applications in order of overall success rating and will prioritise funding on this basis. ILF Scotland will offer funding to the highest scoring applications within the resources available to it. ILF Scotland will manage the funding available for distribution depending on the number of applications and the amount of grant requested within a given period according to the grant budget it has available. This process may result in a delay in communicating the outcome of the application but we will do everything we can to minimise this.
Throughout the application evaluation process, ILF Scotland staff will consider the following:
a. Does the application meet all the criteria detailed in the evaluation framework (below)?
b. How strong is the evidence provided in relation to each of the eight criteria?
c. What is the likely impact or benefit that the plan could have?
d. How likely is it that the planning can be put into action to bring about the benefit.
e. The overall weighting for each application.
f. Is it prioritising funding for those applications that evidence a high benefit and a strong plan
Is there any further information or clarity needed? We have provided some examples in the table below of the evidence we might need to help us to evaluate applications.
Applications to the Transition Fund will not be successful if they score zero (0) against any of the
application criteria. Examples of this include:
ILF Scotland agrees the funding with Scottish Government and the budget will remain constant throughout each financial year. ILF Scotland will manage the Fund via monthly reviews, which will evaluate the sum of applications received versus the amount of grant available and will prioritise payment in accordance with the priority it attaches to each application, as detailed in the Evaluation Framework.
| Strong evidence (5-4) | Less strong (3) | Weak (2-1) | Zero (0) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. An outcome or goal must be identified in the plan, and must be fully centred on, or determined by, the young person. | Plan clearly demonstrates significant involvement of the young person and/or is fully centred on the young person. e.g. is part of any future planning or person centred planning undertaken with the young person. | The plan shows some indication that this represents the applicants preferences ambitions/hopes but some indication of how the identified goal emerged. | Plan shows a small amount of evidence of involvement of the applicant or their supporting adult Or Plan is service-led. | The plan appears to be written on behalf of the applicant. It is not clear that the person has been involved at any point in the development of their plan (Further information is required) |
| Where the young person lacks capacity the plan must reflect the principles of the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 and clearly demonstrate significant involvement of young person, by the person completing the application. | Where the young person lacks capacity this may trigger a visit. | Where the young person lacks capacity this would likely trigger a visit | ||
| Other possible indicators | The plan is written in first person by the person and is strengths based. The plan is written by someone else but using only words of young person Guardian cleary states that that past behaviour or experiences in the activity or goal has been successful/enjoyable. Explicit statement that the plan supports the applicants aspirations. Efforts have been made to support the communication of the Young Person. | The degree to which best practice is absent i.e. some evidence is present | The degree to which best practice is absent Ie a small amount of best practice is evident | Poor practice that excludes the applicant. |
| Insert your score and reason on this line. | ||||
| Strong evidence (5-4) | Less strong (3) | Weak (2-1) | Zero (0) | |
| 2. The outcome or goal must be clearly and directly linked to promoting the young person’s participation or presence or inclusion in a community setting. | The plan will clearly alleviate isolation in the community and promote inclusion. | Some links between the goal and the outcome of inclusion. Or the link is tenuous | The plan provides little information on how it would support the applicant to be active in a community setting. It has to be inferred from the goal how the grant will be spent , and on whether the individual will be active and participating in their community. | It cannot be inferred from plan what the outcome is or how it might enable the applicant to be active and included in a community setting. Further information is required. |
| Other possible Indicators | Plan clearly identifies what the applicant would like to do in a community setting and the type support necessary to achieve this. The terms ‘active’ and ‘community setting’ are referred to in its broadest sense and refers to any recreational, leisure or daily living activity out with a residential or hospital setting. Enables applicant to overcome any barriers to participation in an activity or be visable and present in their community of choice. Community can be geographical or of interest. | It may be a step removed from Immediate inclusion or participation but lead to or assist in future inclusion- | May be very tenous or not related to overcoming the barriers presented by applicants impairment. | Plan is entirely related to critical needs at home. |
| Insert your score and reason on this line. | ||||
| Strong evidence (5-4) | Less strong (3) | Weak (2-1) | Zero (0) | |
| 3. The benefit the young person anticipates the grant will make must be clearly outlined. | Plan, in whatever form it may be presented, is SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Timely- Timely may not be required if the grant is to fund initial steps). | The goal and benefit is identified but other smart principles are missing | Plan is lacking both in terms of specifics as to what the goal and the intended time frames. It is difficult to establish a clear link between the plan and the intended outcome. | There is no evidence that the grant would provide a step change in the applicant’s ability to live more independently and achieve outcomes linked to being more active and participating in their community. |
| Other possible Indicators | End result is described. Or plan clearly shows how current barriers to inclusion will be overcome and be of lasting benefit. | Perhaps an item for purchasing has been identified but no clear link made to any outcome or goal that will be achieved. | ||
| Insert your score and reason on this line. | ||||
| Strong evidence (5-4) | Less strong (3) | Weak (2-1) | Zero (0) | |
| 4. Applicants must be in receipt of little or no formal support from Social Work Services (SWS) under options 1-4 of the Social Care (Self-directed Support) (Scotland) Act 2013. | There is evidence that no SWS support is in place following a SW assessment. | Applicant has some SDS supports or is likely to be eligible for some. NB The average SDS budget is 7.5hrs support per week. Supports between 7-14 hrs which provide personal care can be considered “some” support | Applicant has high levels of SDS support which is largely comprised of critical personal care. Or no SW support has been requested although the applicant may be eligible for high levels of support. | Applicant has high levels of SWS support providing a comprehensive support package that includes a high degree of support to be active and included in their community. |
| Other possible Indicators | The impairment has a significant impact on ability to participate and be included and no SWS is in place. | Although SW input has been requested, no SW support been offered | Signifcant levels of support offered. Is there sufficient support, perhaps with a reconfiguration of current hours, to meet the identified goal? The declared impairment has minimal impact or dos not create barriers to participation and inclusion | |
| Insert your score and reason on this line. | ||||
| Strong evidence (5-4) | Less strong (3) | Weak (2-1) | Zero (0) | |
| 5. The plan has clear costs identified to deliver it, and evidences value for money. | Strong evidence (5-4) The plan is clearly costed and/or includes quotations for the purchase of any goods or services. The initial cost of implementing the plan is outweighed by the long-term benefits for the applicant . | Only some costs are provided or the costs are generic without evidence of person centred costing. The costs are disproportionate when benchmarked. | Cost is disproportionate to any benefit likely to be achieved for the applicant. | No indication of costing is provided. The presented costs bear no relation to the intended purchases. The costs could be seen as a means to obtain public funds by another route. |
| Indicators | May reduce the need for future statutory supports by promoting resilience and independence | |||
| Insert your score and reason on this line. | ||||
| Strong evidence (5-4) | Less strong (3) | Weak (2-1) | Zero (0) | |
| 6. The plan has considered how the benefit from the grant will be maintained at the end of the grant period. | The award applied for forms part of a larger transitional plan for the applicant with identifiable ‘next steps’. The plan is time limited with a clearly identifiable outcomes and next steps outlined where required | Plan is time limited and partly shows how the applicant will proceed once award period has ended. | There is a little consideration of on-going development or maintenance of the positive impact of the grant. The plan is speculative where it should be specific. NB Trials and hopeful outcomes are encouraged but thought to the exit process is needed | There is no consideration of how the proposed positive impacts will be sustained, and the grant might be considered as a ‘stop-gap’ for other services. |
| Indicators | ||||
| Insert your score and reason on this line. | ||||
| Strong evidence (5-4) | Less strong (3) | Weak (2-1) | Zero (0) | |
| 7. The plan does not create any circumstances which may cause physical emotional material harm or abuse. | The plan is consistent with safeguarding the interests of the applicant from harm or abuse. | There are potentially significant risks of harm however other agencies are accepting and managing these risks. | There are concerns that the plan may create some circumstances which could give rise to harm, abuse or be otherwise detrimental to the applicant and no other agencies are managing these risks. | It is evident in the evaluation process that there are significant unidentified risks associated with the proposed plan. Or there are identified risks which are not managed. set in the context of what the individual is trying to achieve. |
| Indicators | There are people in the applicants life who will be able to contribute to safeguarding the applicant. | The intervention makes the individual vulnerable in their community with no person or plan to keep the person safe. | ||
| Insert your score and reason on this line. | ||||
| Strong evidence (5-4) | Less strong (3) | Weak (2-1) | Zero (0) | |
| 8. There is evidence that no other agencies or sources of funding will support this request. | Applicant does not meet eligibility criteria for funding from the relevant statutory body or other well known funder. There is no body to apply to for the funding applied for. | There is a little or some potential eligbility but the timeframe or local eligbility criteria mean an application would take too long or be unlikely to succeed. NB Pending or suspending is available | There is signficant potential eligbility for other funding but the timeframe or local eligbility criteria mean an application would take too long or be unlikely to succeed. NB Pending or suspending is available | Plan is designed to meet critical or substantial social care need that is likely available from social work. Or other sources of funding have been offered. Another statutory service or support organisation which would normally provide this type of support has not been approached. Consider signposting. |
| Indicators | See policy and practice papers on * Assistive technology for communication * Motability and drving lessons * Assistance for studying. | |||
| Insert your score and reason on this line. |
