Common challenges with integrating and/or aligning funding streams 8.2.2.1 Legislative barriers and restrictions on how resources could be used 8.2.2.2 Accountability to individual funding streams 8.2.2.3 Concerns over destabilising the market 8.2.2.4 Budgetary implications of the expected increase in demand 8.2.2.5 Social care as the gateway to other funding streams 8.3 Supporting People 8.3.1 Factors supporting a move toward integration 8.3.1.1Close working relationships 8.3.1.2Overlapping aims and objectives 8.3.2Barriers to integration 8.3.2.1 Diverse target/user groups between adult social care and SP 8.3.2.2 Diverse eligibility criteria 8.3.2.3 Block contracts and the risks of double-funding 8.3.2.4 Budgetary uncertainty 8.3.3Issues for the future 8.3.3.1 Charging 8.3.3.2Crisis services 8.4 Access to Work 8.4.1 The benefits of linking adult social care with employment support 8.4.2Barriers to aligning/integrating Access to Work 8.4.2.1 Eligibility criteria 8.4.2.2 Employer contributions 8.4.2.3 Inability to target particular groups through the evaluation 8.5 Disabled Facilities Grants 8.5.1 Potential benefits of integration 8.5.1.1Avoiding delays and reducing longerterm costs 8.5.2Barriers to integration 8.5.2.1 Legislative barriers 8.5.2.2 Type of authority 8.5.2.3 Specialist assessment 8.5.2.4 Inability to 'personalise' adaptations 8.5.2.5 Stresses of managing a DFG 8.5.2.6 Timescales 8.5.3The DFG Review 8.6 Independent Living Fund 8.6.1 Steps toward alignment 8.6.2Barriers to alignment 8.6.2.1 Legislative barriers and restrictions on how funds could be spent 8.6.2.2 Inability to include ILF monies within the RAS 8.6.2.3 Support planning 8.6.2.4 Separate financial assessment and review arrangements 8.6.3Rising applications to the ILF 8.6.4ILF Review 8.7 Integrated Community Equipment Services 8.7.1 Advantages of including ICES within individual budgets 8.7.1.1Increased choice 8.7.1.2Bespoke items of equipment 8.7.1.3Avoiding delays 8.7.2 Barriers to integration 8.7.2.1 Specialist assessments and workforce issues 8.7.2.2 Costs and budgets 8.7.2.3 Fitting, delivery and maintenance 8.8 Service users' awareness of non-social care funding streams 8.9 Including additional funding streams within IBs 8.9.1 Disability benefits 8.9.2 Resources to support education, training, and labour market activity 8.9.3 Transport 8.9.4 NHS funding 8.10 Conclusions Chapter 9 Eligibility, Assessment and Resource Allocation 13.4.1.2IBs as an opportunity for new business?13.4.2Are providers being asked for existing care to be delivered in new ways?13.4.2.1 Where IBs had little or no effect on the provision of care 13.4.2.2Where IBs have led to new demands 13.4.3Workforce issues 13.4.3.1 The impact on rostering 13.4.3.2Managing boundaries in mental health services 13.4.3.3Forward planning 13.4.3.4Recruitment and retention of staff 13.4.4Administrative issues 13.4.4.1 Non-payment, invoicing and pricing 13.4.4.2 Marketing 13.5 The role of the local authority in commissioning 13.5.1 Promoting efficiency 13.5.2Promoting standards and 'policing the system' 13.5.3Information providers of user choices and preferences 13.5.4Supporting providers through change 13.5 .5 Supporting informed decision making by IB holders Chapter 14The research reported here would not have been possible without the help of a great many people across the 13 individual budget pilot sites; within our respective universities and research units; and in the Department of Health and the Care Services Improvement Partnership.We are also grateful to all those service users, their families and carers who agreed to participate in the study; to the local authority staff at all levels who took part in interviews and focus groups; and particularly to those staff who collated routine service use data for the evaluation team.This study was relatively unusual in the very heavy demands it made on local authority staff to collect essential data and we are indebted to them for the help they gave particularly as sites were at the same time managing the demands of implementing individual budgets.The study also required extensive fieldwork to be conducted over what proved to be a very short space of time.We are grateful for the patience, persistence and enthusiasm of the many sessional interviewers who conducted the six-month outcome interviews, and particularly to Sue Clarke for her invaluable contribution to the fieldwork.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 229 citations exist upstream.