Research Report DFE-RR145d. Individual budgets for families with disabled children. Resource allocation thematic. Graham Thom

Transcription

1 Research Report DFE-RR145d Individual budgets for families with disabled children Resource allocation thematic Graham Thom

2 This research report was commissioned before the new UK Government took office on 11 May As a result the content may not reflect current Government policy and may make reference to the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) which has now been replaced by the Department for Education (DFE). The views expressed in this report are the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department for Education.

3 ...16 Contents Contents U1: IntroductionU...1 U2: Resource allocation approachesu...3 U3: Overview U

4 HU UH 1: Introduction 1: 0BIntroduction 1.1 SQW was commissioned by the Department for Education (DfE) to lead a consortium to undertake the evaluation and support/challenge role for the Individual Budget (IB) Pilots for Families with Disabled Children. A series of reports from the study are 1 available through the DfE websitef F. In the course of the assignment a number of key issues were identified as requiring more in-depth, thematic review. This paper focuses on one of these issues resource allocation. 1.2 The IB pilots are one form of personalised budget. Across any form of personalised budget a key question is the value of resource allocated to each individual case. Resource allocation provides a way of calculating this amount in relation to assessed need. The allocation of resource has to reflect the needs of the individual and the constrained budgets of local authorities and other funders, and so the resource allocation system also acts as a way of balancing these two factors. 1.3 It is of course important to note that the statutory duties placed on local authorities mean that the use of a resource allocation approach as outlined in this paper can only produce an indicative budget. Authorities are then required to ensure that the 2 level of budget allocated is sufficient to meet user needs.f F 1.4 A series of resource allocation models have developed over time. These approaches are often quite quantitative or technical for some practitioners who therefore can struggle to understand the differences between models. 1.5 This paper therefore seeks to explain a number of the main models and considers their strengths and weaknesses. It draws on several sources of evidence: The six IB pilot sites this is drawn from feedback from staff delivering the pilots and qualitative feedback from participating families A desk review of the different models The judgment of the Court of Appeal in R (Savva) v Kensington and Chelsea makes clear that while RAS schemes may be used as a starting point to give an indication of the level of funding which may be required, they cannot dispense with a local authority s absolute duty to meet assessed needs through services or direct payments once it has concluded that such services are necessary from Cemented to the floor by law : Respecting legal duties in a time of cuts 2 Steve Broach, Barrister, Doughty Street Chambers 1

5 1: Introduction Detailed consultation with In Control and FACE about the models that they have developed Consultation with three local authorities using resource allocation models outside of the IB pilot. 1.6 The next section of this paper introduces a range of approaches and reviews their strengths and weaknesses. The final section draws some conclusions on the current state of play. 2

6 2: 1BResource allocation approaches 2: Resource allocation approaches 3BIntroduction 2.1 This chapter begins by introducing a range of approaches and tools for resource allocation. This is followed by a description and critique of the main approaches. 4BThe current range of Resource Allocation approaches 2.2 A range of approaches have been adopted in initiatives which seek to take forward the personalisation agenda. These are summarised in XTable 1X. Table 1: Overview of approaches Intervention area Adult social care Families with disabled children based around social care Young people with special educational needs and disabilities from Year 9 at school in their transition onto their next step Approach(es) The Adult IB pilot sites were strongly encouraged to use the Resource Allocation System (RAS) developed by In Control. More widely in terms of personal budgets local authorities have adopted a range of approaches: ADCS set out a series of principles around a common RAS approach and alongside this provided a series of materials developed by In Control. The Audit Commission reported that over 120 Authorities 3 now use some form of In Control materialsf FACE has worked with a range of local authorities and NHS Trusts to develop assessment tools and related this to a RAS to calculate an indicative budget. We understand that in excess of 80 authorities use FACE Assessment tools. A series of local authorities have used a version of the In Control RAS, often with significant local adaptation. The IB pilot sites have adopted a range of approaches: three sites opted to use an adapted version of the In Control model (i.e. the Resource Allocation System (RAS) version 4 or 5) two sites opted to develop their own alternative system one site chose to use both the In Control RAS and to develop an alternative system (where each will be used for different age groups). Where alternative models have been adopted these are, very broadly, based around a banding process that is in principle similar to the In Control approach or by developing outline packages of care for the family and then costing the package to test if it is appropriate to the level of need. In Chapter two we discuss the experiences of the two sites that adopted the latter style of approach. The Learning for Living and Work Framework (LLWF) is in the process of being piloted. It is based around: Part 1: Person centred plan, parent/carer views and reports which make up the transition plan and support the S139a Assessment 3 Audit Commission Financial management of personal budgets,

7 Intervention area Right to Control pilots Personal Health Budgets Source: SQW Approach(es) Part 2: is a RAS tool which calculates the support that the young person will require in order to access and participate in education. The analysis converts to a points score from which a budget will be calculated (although this latter part is not yet complete) Part 3: Provider assessment and curriculum offer/support from partner agencies based on the needs identified Part 4: The S139A Assessment. There is no set requirement for the Trailblazers. They are able to choose their own way of resource allocation. We understand that for: Adult Social Care and Disabled Facilities Grant strands local authorities are using their locally developed systems Supporting People, Sitra developed a proposed RAS which was issued to each Trailblazer, but it is their choice whether they wish to use it or not The Independent Living Fund, Access to Work and Work Choice - no RAS is used. The pilot programme began in It has been left to individual areas to decide how to address resource allocation, and their thinking has not yet been reported through the evaluation. 2.3 Based on the evidence we have become aware of through the IB evaluation it appears that for young people variations of the In Control RAS, versions 4 and 5, are most widely used. We therefore consider these in more detail in the next section. This is followed by a similar consideration of the FACE RAS, which is widely used for adults. Thirdly, and in less detail because there is less widespread experience or development of the models we consider the LLWF and alternative approaches adopted by the IB pilots. 2.4 In each case we: Explain how the framework is intended to work Comment on the apparent strengths and weaknesses of each. In doing so we consider a range of issues which have been highlighted to us as important aspects of a good resource allocation tool, namely that it should be transparent and fair in allocating resources according to levels of need. 2.5 We then conclude with an overview of the current position, highlighting areas where further refinement may still be required. 5BIn Control s RAS The basis for RAS 4 developed from previous experience, which started in adult social care with work around the Disability Living Allowance in Lanarkshire in

8 Version 2 evolved from work with Wigan and other authorities and Version 3 was developed for Lincolnshire. The latter introduced the concepts of weighted elements based on relative need and outcomes, which also provided a basis against which to check that the money would then be spent appropriately. 2.7 Version 3 introduced the concept of the Self Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ, sometimes now also referred to a Resource Allocation Tool - RAT) as the basis for understanding need. The SAQ used a series of questions and response scales (e.g. from 1-5 representing low to high) to provide a numerical score / value of need. In practice a form of supported self assessment often takes place with the professional assisting the person to complete the form. 2.8 RAS 4 was initially developed as part of the Adult IB programme and sought to progress from the points score, to convert assessment points into pounds via a price point. This was done by: Selecting a sample of current service users and assessing their needs to give a total number of points For the same users, calculating the total monetary value of their current package of support, and summing these together to give the total value of support Dividing the total support budget by the total points score to arrive at an average price per point or price point The value of future support packages can then be calculated by multiplying the assessment scores by the price point. 4 F F 2.9 This approach has also been used for young people. Modifications were made to ensure the questionnaire offered a more tailored means of assessing the support needs of a disabled child and their family, with the questionnaire based around the five Every Child Matters (ECM) outcomes it asks how much support a person needs to meet the positive outcome specified This model has a number of attractions, in that it is: Relatively simple to understand and so local authorities are able to explain the steps involved to users 4 In practice it is often the case that individual questions within the SAQ are given different weights to reflect the different costs of meeting different needs. 5

9 Able to engage the user fully in the assessment process, for example in some cases the user can lead in completing the questionnaire It focuses on outcomes and so provides the basis for a budget based on need rather than from a predetermined mix of services Is comprehensive in seeking to cover all needs and so provides an option to 5 value needs on a common basisf Is being used widely in adult services and so it may aid the transition process if children s services adopt a similar approach However, a number of weaknesses have also been identified. Firstly, the initial price point developed is strongly related to the previous value of packages, yet these may not have been appropriate. For example, some individual users may have argued up their packages beyond what was strictly needed; while others may have been receiving less than they needed due to weaknesses in assessment or the provision offer. There is no expectation that these two types of bias should even out and so the original size of the budget pot may not have been correct. Indeed, in one authority we are aware that taking six families through the RAS led to increased support to the value of 30,000 as in a number of cases needs were not previously being addressed fully The second broad set of issues concerns the conversion of the assessment into a score from which a monetary budget can be calculated. A number of issues were identified around this: The level of assessed need is an approximation based on the coding in the SAQ, and so the resultant budget must be similarly be an approximation. Any weighting applied to particular questions should add a further level of accuracy to the model. This will require higher level modelling skills, or else spot judgements on particular cases which may not be mathematically robust for the longer term. That said, because the initial allocation has for legal reasons to be indicative, producing a figure which is an approximation may not be too serious an issue it may be good enough as a basis from which to discuss appropriate service provision. In effect it provides a starting figure for the budget, which will change based on detailed support planning. The pricing mechanism can 5 ADASS s Common Resource Allocation Framework (2009) recommends that Councils should not exclude very high levels of need from their allocation framework 6

10 be refined over time as more families receive personalised budgets and there is more confidence that their actual allocation is correct Very significant needs can arise from particular disabilities. However, the SAQ tends to favour those who need a breadth of support over a range of questions rather than extremely high levels of need on a few questions. This occurs simply because it adds the scores from each question together In practice, RAS 4 led to a significant re-allocation of resources across users. Some of those at the top of the scale saw their budgets fall, despite having significant need but often in relation to specific issues; while those nearer the bottom in the old distribution saw their allocation increase. This meant that overall the cost curve tended to be much flatter than before and practitioners were not comfortable with this degree of change. This led to the RAS 5 approach being developed. 6BIn Control s RAS RAS 5 continues to use a SAQ to derive a score of need. The difference comes around how this is converted into a budget. The process operates through a number of steps: The needs scores for each of the users in the sample are organised from high to low and allocated to percentiles, e.g. the top percentile is based on the highest scored need and the 50% value would equate to the median value of the sample The value of existing care packages for the sample of users is similarly ordered from high to low and in percentiles Then an allocation table is created through aligning the needs scores and package values from the same percentiles, i.e. the 75 th percentile needs score would get the package value from the 75 th percentile. The package values for future cases are then calculated based on the needs score generated through the SAQ and matching this to the equivalent budget percentile (see Figure 2). 7

11 Figure 2: Summary of RAS 5 Need Profile Needs Profile A needs score of 35 falls in 49 th percentile Price Profile 70,000 60,000 50,000 Cost 40,000 30,000 20, And this is then associated with an indicative budget value 10, This is then associated with the price 0 profile at the 49 th percentile Percentile Range Source: SQW adapted from In Control A 10 Step Plan for Reforming Social Care Funding, As with RAS 4 this newer version is attractive in being comprehensive in its approach. It also avoids the significant change in the cost curve by allocating resources based on the previous profile, hence in effect it should replicate the old cost curve (unless a contingency element is built in) At the same time it is open to similar concerns about basing packages on old values, as it is recognised that these may not be accurate in reflecting need. Indeed, in some ways RAS 5 is even more dependent on old package values as these provide the point values for the indicative budget. Moreover, these budgets are in part taken out of context by breaking the link with the specific individuals to whom they were allocated previously. So, although the cost curve may not change overall, the values received by individual families can alter significantly. This is demonstrated in Figure 3 which is taken from one of the IB pilot sites. The concerns expressed above over the use of previous and possibly inappropriate budgets are amplified here. The significant difference between the two curves would suggest at least some concern around the accuracy of either the previous or new allocations. The extent of these changes may be reduced if there were more cases in the sample, but we have not yet seen this worked through in practice. 8

12 Figure 3: The effect of changing systems at an individual level Current to RAS 5 Spend Money Current Spend RAS Points Source: IB pilot area 2.17 The changes also give rise to other concerns. Our consultations with local authorities suggest that some have struggled to understand how this model operates and a similar response might be expected of users. This would impact on any claim of transparency, although such understanding could be built over time Moreover, the nature of the cost curve means that it will not be smooth. As can be seen in the examples above there are some parts where the curve is very flat and in other places it falls sharply. For example, in Figure 2 above consider the drop between points where the curve is fairly smooth, with the sharpness between 80 and 70 points. This matters because it means that the indicative budget value can be highly sensitive to the point score at some points on the curve (one point can make a big difference), yet at other places a score difference of several points has no effect on the indicative budget produced With a large number of cases the curve may smooth out, but we are aware of one pilot site that was using the model in more than 100 cases and the uneven effect was still apparent. This means that: Allocations can at points be very sensitive to the SAQ score, which introduces a greater level of risk around the accuracy and quality of completion of the SAQ 9

13 Users are less clear why their score and budget appears not to relate to what others receive because the relationship is not linear (one parent commented we expected that, say, 50 points mean 50 and 20 points would mean 20, but it was nothing like that ) It is therefore likely that this model may be less transparent than RAS 4 with the risk that practitioners and users are less clear about the basis for the budget. This could lead to less trust in the calculation produced. Therefore, the discussion around the use of the budget may start from a less sure footing, which in turn may mean that users attempt to negotiate more around their budget. If this happens to a large extent then the value of having a RAS calculator would decline as the allocation would, as is the concern now, depend on the extent to which families can argue up their allocation The other possibility is that the sharp changes in individual allocations are a function of change. If the RAS is used for a second time, say after an annual review then the change would be expected to less dramatic as the RAS questionnaire becomes embedded as the basis of the calculation There are also significant risks associated with the initial change. These risks are both financial and around the exent to which families will wish to remain engaged. In the IB pilot sites an issue has arisen because the total budget for the pilot came from those families which agreed to take part (i.e. it was the sum of their previous packages). Then some families dropped out of the pilot. This has left the pilot with a potential liability, because those dropping out often have been allocated a reduced budget. The families remaining tended to have the same or larger budgets than before. This created a bias towards those with an increased allocation in the pilot (in effect the winners stayed in while some losers left). When families dropped out and maintained their current budget the pilot manager then faced a choice of: Recalculating the price point and package values for remaining families yet this was not practical where they had completed support planning and had an agreed plan; or Managing any deficit through a contingency fund. The contingency had been created by top slicing the overall pot before it was allocated. While an attractive way to manage risk this approach does mean that the overall average level of support to families via the initial RAS allocations was lower than before because the size of the pot to be distributed was reduced by the amount of the contingency. 10

14 2.23 If the initial price point is calculated using a large number of cases relative to the population of users then concerns over the packages included in the calculation should decline. This would get closer to a whole budget approach whereby the total points would be set against the council s total budget rather than that of a sub-set of families. However, this whole budget calculation would increase set up costs as more reviews would be required to calculate the price point A similar issue could arise where newcomers to the system are added through the IB approach. By definition newcomers have no prior budget allocation. Hence, if they are then covered through the pooled budget then on average all users will receive less as the same amount of money has to be distributed to a large number of beneficiaries Alternatively, as one authority we consulted has done, it would be possible to work out the price point based on a large sample and then take the necessary funding from the overall budget rather than a ring fenced IB pot. This provides greater degrees of freedom to deal with dropouts or anomalies. However, so long as the IB is optional this approach would still risk more families opting to take up an IB when their allocation went up than down. If this happens, and those who decline an IB revert to their previously agreed service package at the same value as before, then the process will increase the overall need for resources. 7BThe FACE RAS 2.26 The FACE RAS was initially developed as part of a Department of Health initiative in the 1990s. It was intended to be the basis of a national system to relate costs to needs and has now developed strongly in the world of adult social care It starts with a very strong focus on assessment. A series of assessment tools have been developed, based around the FACE Overview and Self Assessment forms but with a range of other particular groups covered (such as those with learning disabilities or mental health issues). The assessment then enables a calculation of support needs, and from this comes an indicative figure for resources that can be allocated locally to meet this level of need. Following this a support plan can be developed based around the indicative budget In outline terms this approach is similar to that promoted by In Control. However, the detail behind the systems is very different. In particular, FACE holds data centrally from a number of authorities covering assessments (from their assessment forms), local support costs and descriptive personal / demographic data. Nationally 11

15 standardised costs of provision are also used to estimate what a normal support package should cost. They then use this information to statistically model the relationship between the needs of the person and the resource that they should be allocated By drawing and combining data from a number of areas they have been able to develop a model which described the general allocation process, into which future assessments can be fed and, with an adjustment for local costs, a personal budget calculated. This budget will reflect both previous patterns of allocation and the costs of service provision locally. These adjustments are made by changing the weightings applied to variables in the model, but not the overall structure of the model There are a number of potentially strong attractions in this approach: The clear linkage to assessment (with a range of general and specific tools) The use of statistical modelling to associate need with costs should produce a robust relationship It can provide an overview of all cases in an area and so provide reassurance about the overall budget implications of system wide change The modelling can highlight outliers in the data (where needs appear not closely related with existing support) and so correct for these going forward. This correction can occur at both a user level (with the authority revisiting the case) and in terms of the modelling to increase the predictive power of the model The modelling approach also allows for adjustment where independent needs overlap. For example, if someone needs help with dressing and daily monitoring due to mental health issues then there is scope to achieve the latter in parallel with the first. In a linear model the two needs would be added together, which in turn would lead to a higher budget That said, of course the power of any statistical model depends on how accurately it can model existing care. We understand that FACE can now exceed a correlation of 6 above 0.9 in many authoritiesf F. The level of accuracy appears to vary, at least in some Councils and for different client groups. 6 Clifford P. Where is the evidence: A review of the Common RAS Framework, FACE RAS Working Paper No 2 reports a 0.9 correlation between the cost of support produced by the model and the actual cost of support. Perfect correlation would produce a value of

16 2.33 All models will include a degree of error and this approach could be argued to produce an indicative budget that is very close to right, where right is judged through previous allocations and standard service costs. Getting close to right by identifying and addressing anomalies in the previous allocations can also lead to cost savings: FACE report that improving the fit between predicted and actual costs of a budget from a correlation of 0.7 to 0.9 is worth on average 10 per user per week In considering the level of accuracy it is important to consider the ways in which individuals treat their allocation (which we have not been able to do in this piece of work). In the Working Paper FACE make much of the allocation being accurate, and so (implicitly) providing a point value from which to design support. However, the budget has to be indicative. Moreover, in light of the, probably inevitable, noncorrelation in the model individual negotiation around the indicative budget is perhaps an advantage as it builds in flexibility. However, too much flexibility may not be a good thing. In practice the more this negotiation changes the indicative budget then the less useful is the claim that the model offers greater precision (as the negotiation in effect moves eventual spend away from the value produced by the model and probably builds in an inflationary tendency as people argue their allocations up, as is thought to have happened in the previous system) There is also the question of what to do for groups of the population where the level of accuracy falls. In the medium term further work to link budgets to needs and to model relationships may improve the level of accuracy, but this does not address any short term issues. The complexity of the relationship between assessment and budget may well require this type of modelling, but this will remain difficult for nonspecialists to understand in detail There may also be a concern about the transparency of the model. While FACE argue rightly that practitioners can explain to users that assessments are compared to a national set of benchmarks, the modelling is not accessible to the same extent as, for example, a score produced through RAS 4 as outlined above One further challenge for FACE in the context of the IB pilot is that the model has been developed for adults and not for children. Therefore considerable development work would be required to gather and model sufficient cases to produce a robust set of equations. This work is, we understand, at an early stage of consideration. Similarly, as the IB approach develops, the need to include a range of different budgets would add a further layer of complexity to the nature of the model. For example, different funding streams are likely to be subject to different factors, and 13

17 bringing these together in a single model is likely to require some reworking for each different combination of funding streams. 8BOther approaches 2.38 Two of the IB Pilot sites have used models which allocate resources in a different way to those described above (a third has also not used any of the approaches described but in outline is similar to the RAS 4 approach). The two have instead developed an approach which is based around the costing of particular services In one of the two models initial work is undertaken to review the assessment and existing care plans of the family. Subsequently, the families are contacted and an initial discussion held to discuss what outcomes the family and child/young person would like to achieve. The identified outcomes were then costed by the professionals on the basis of the costs of standard services being provided in the current, traditional system as proxies for service provision that would be required to achieve the outcomes. The sum value of these services is then called the indicative budget Perhaps the main issue with this approach is the basis on which professionals put together the indicative budget. Outcomes could be achieved through a range of services, and the choices made will in this model influence the value, even though needs would not have changed. Therefore, this model risks being more open to variation in associating need to budget because: The budget is not directly based on need, but the associated cost of support, and this requires an element on judgement The judgement of what support is required will be made by different people, who may make different decisions In the other pilot site the early intervention approach has been facilitated through lead professionals, who initially visit the family to identify needs and desired outcomes, following which a Team Around the Family meeting is held. Following agreement of the needs/outcomes, support planning takes place and the individual budget is calculated on the basis of the chosen services/activities. The attraction of this model is that the budget follows agreement of the service package and so the process should be easier for families to understand. However, the risks to manage are: To ensure that each budget is appropriate to the needs identified and that this is done consistently in comparison to other budgets, as this is likely to come 14

18 down to judgement of the practitioner rather than the more formula based RAS approaches described above To ensure that the sum of allocations sits within the overall support budget for all families That the family will not know at the start of support planning what their allocation is and this may influence their choices or level of negotiation Turning now to the LLWF being piloted by the Young People s learning Agency (YPLA). This includes a RAS questionnaire which is to be completed by a professional following a more detailed assessment in the first part of the framework document. The questionnaire is focussed very much on what support is needed to enable the learner to engage in learning (rather than outcomes). The YPLA is currently looking at how this assessment of need will translate to a personal budget A key issue highlighted by the LLWF is the challenge of developing a national framework for one element of activity (learning), and then to understand how this fits alongside the differently focussed (usually social care) approaches at local level. Both issues are important elements in the support and development of a young person but as the pilot framework stands at present it is not clear how far the assessment and allocation processes could be brought together In an ideal world it may be that assessment information could be shared and a single RAS used across the elements. However, in view of the specificity of the questions in each RAS this may be a step too far. If so the challenge would then become to align the process elements so that information is gathered and shared, and resource allocation undertaken in parallel so that the burden on families is minimised. It could also be possible to move towards an integrated support planning process to bring together the support offered. By doing so it should be also be possible to ensure that resources from different funding streams can be brought together to meet outcomes which span, say, education and social care. 15

19 3: Overview 3: 2BOverview 3.1 The discussion above has highlighted a range of approaches to resource allocation. In considering the relative strengths and weaknesses of different approaches it is necessary to consider a number of factors which could be seen as typifying good practice, namely that the allocation system: Can be readily understood by professionals and users/carers. The more complex the model the less easily it can be understood Can be closely linked to the assessment document Allocates a level of resources which is judged by those involved to relate closely to the level of need Provides a way of managing an overall budget as well as that allocated to an individual. 3.2 When each of the approaches was considered in the paper above it was apparent that there are strengths and weaknesses with each approach in terms of the factors set out above. The weaknesses identified arise from: The transparency of the system, especially as assessments and scoring are converted into a monetary value The use of old budgets or costings as the basis for new ones, when it is suspected that these may not be reliable. This issue can arise at the level of the individual or for a group of users (where the overall budget is set based on their previous packages) Taking account of different types of need within a single approach, with the risk that the formula unfairly favours one type of users over another. 3.3 These limitations of the current approaches are all issues that could and doubtless will be improved over time. As experience of operating such systems improves, the number of cases on which decisions are based grows and old anomalies are smoothed out, so confidence in the new approaches should grow. 3.4 What this brief paper has not been able to resolve is how far one approach is clearly better than another in terms of fairly translating need into an amount of money. This reflects the fact that in practice most areas have chosen to develop a single 16

20 3: Overview approach. Therefore, it is not possible to conduct a comparative analysis taking the same cases through different approaches to understand in a controlled way how far they produce different results. Moreover, we have not looked in detail at the costs of setup and operation of the different models to understand not just which is fairest but which would represent best value for money. Both issues would require further, detailed research. 3.5 That said, perhaps the issue is not to compare one model against the other. Rather, the key issue in practice may be how useful the indicative budget is in informing support planning. To be useful the emerging evidence from the wider IB evaluation would suggest that in general families benefit from knowing the value of the budget in advance of support planning. 3.6 There is then the important question of flexibility around the indicative budget. In legal terms it appears that in matching support to assessed needs there has to be an unconstrained amount of flexibility. However, if this flexibility is frequently required, it would tend to suggest that either the initial allocations are not suitable; or are not seen as rigorous or trustworthy by professionals / families. This latter scenario was often reported as a limitation of the previous approaches, and resource allocation was intended to address this. Therefore if large changes are still being made then one of the key advantages of resource allocation is not being realised. 3.7 In practice it appears that where families have received an amount that they consider fair (usually close to their previous package) and they understand the basis for this allocation, then they will be willing to proceed on this basis. This indicates that the choice between resource approaches becomes less important than the process itself and how it is communicated to families. 3.8 It is when there are major downward changes in the value of packages that families seem most likely to drop out of the IB approach and revert to their previous package. This can create a real funding issue when the overall budget is fixed, as the overall pull on resources becomes larger (ie those who would receive reduced allocations opt out, and those who would see increases stay in and so the overall change is an increase in the total funds required). There are perhaps two means of reducing this risk, by: Developing a personal allocation for all families, which even if they then choose not to engage in support planning and decision making does provide better budget control. This would still mean some families losing part of their 17

21 3: Overview funding allocation, but this may be more achievable if carried out across the population, and especially if the change is not optional for families Avoiding creating an IB budget pot for a small number of families and instead draw the resources from the overall budget pot, hence making the value of the IB packages less sensitive to which individuals opt in and out. 18

22 Ref: DFE-RR145d ISBN: SQW July 2011