The basic building blocks of offering personalised support with ISFs and what it means in practice.
Author: Chris Watson
Individual Service Funds (ISFs) have become a vital option for people drawing upon social care, offering people the opportunity to take control of their support and shape it around their lives. At their best, ISFs empower individuals to focus on their goals, make meaningful choices, and achieve outcomes that traditional care systems struggle to deliver. But the promise of ISFs can only be realised if they are implemented with care, structure and a genuine commitment to flexibility.
A real ISF is not just a funding mechanism. It’s a way of shifting power to the individual, creating a system that works for them rather than the other way around. However, without a clear process, ISFs can easily lose their focus, becoming little more than a rebranding exercise that offers no real change.
To ensure ISFs achieve their potential, we need to follow a set of key steps that keep the individual at the centre. These steps guide everything from the initial assessment to ongoing review, making sure that the ISF remains relevant, transparent, and impactful.
These steps aren’t just a process—they are the foundation of what makes an ISF effective. By following them, we move beyond ticking boxes and focus on delivering real, meaningful outcomes. A well-implemented ISF gives people the freedom to live the lives they choose, while ensuring that funds are used responsibly and transparently.
ISFs have the potential to transform care, but only if we approach them with the seriousness they deserve. A structured process ensures that every ISF delivers on its promise, creating real, lasting impacts for individuals and their families.
In the sections that follow, we’ll explore each of these steps in more detail, unpacking how they work and why they’re essential to creating a true ISF.
This isn’t just about doing things differently—it’s about doing things better.
Purpose: To understand the individual’s unique needs, aspirations, and current challenges.
Key Actions:
Outcome: A comprehensive care plan that identifies the goals and areas where support is required.
Purpose: To ensure funding reflects the individual’s assessed needs and outcomes.
Key Actions:
Outcome: A clear and agreed-upon personal budget that empowers the individual to plan and manage their support.
Purpose: To entrust the management of the individual’s fund to a provider who aligns with their needs and values.
Key Actions:
Outcome: A trusted partnership with an ISF provider who ensures the individual’s funds are used effectively and transparently.
Purpose: To create a personalised and flexible plan that outlines how the budget will achieve the individual’s goals.
Key Actions:
Outcome: A detailed support plan that is person-centred, goal-oriented, and adaptable to changing needs.
Purpose: To deploy the budget effectively, ensuring services and resources align with the individual’s preferences and outcomes.
Key Actions:
Outcome: Support is delivered in a way that meets the individual’s goals while maximizing the value of the allocated budget.
Purpose: To ensure the ISF is used appropriately and continues to deliver meaningful outcomes.
Key Actions:
Outcome: Clear evidence of how the ISF is achieving its intended purpose, with adjustments made as necessary.
Purpose: To ensure the ISF remains relevant and responsive to the individual’s evolving needs and aspirations.
Key Actions:
Outcome: A dynamic and flexible system of support that evolves with the individual’s needs and preferences.
Purpose: To uphold standards and ensure funds are used ethically and legally.
Key Actions:
Outcome: Trust and confidence in the ISF system, with robust safeguards to protect all stakeholders.
In traditional models, an assessment determines the number of care hours required for specific tasks, such as personal care, meal preparation, or companionship.
Under an ISF model, the same assessment identifies:
The individual’s goals: What do they want to achieve (e.g., independence, community involvement)?
Support needs: What type of assistance is required to achieve these goals (e.g., skills training, equipment, companionship)?
Cost implications: The financial equivalent of meeting these needs. For example, if someone needs 10 hours of personal care per week at £20 per hour, their annual care cost would be £10,400. This can become the starting point for their ISF budget.
Instead of assigning care hours to specific tasks, the total value of those hours is converted into a flexible budget. This allows the individual to "spend" their budget on various supports that achieve their desired outcomes.
This process ensures:
The hourly cost of traditional care is used as a baseline.
Additional costs (e.g., admin fees for ISF management, travel expenses) are factored into the final budget.
For instance, the £10,400 annual cost of 10 care hours per week becomes a spendable budget for the individual to use creatively.
The individual works with an ISF provider to create a personalized plan. Instead of being locked into rigid care hours, the budget is used to purchase services or resources that align with their goals.
Traditional Model: Sarah would have been allocated 12 hours per week for tasks such as meal prep, shopping, and companionship.
ISF Approach: The equivalent budget of £12,480 (£20/hour x 12 hours/week x 52 weeks) was turned into a spendable fund. Sarah used this to:
Attend weekly cooking classes (£1,500 annually).
Hire a personal assistant for social activities (£8,000 annually).
Use the remaining funds for ad-hoc support and activity fees, helping her build skills for independent living.
Outcome: By redirecting funds toward skill-building and social engagement, Sarah achieved independence and reduced her reliance on personal assistants.
Traditional Model: Maya might have been allocated 8 hours of weekly support for tasks such as community outings or anxiety management.
ISF Approach: The £8,320 budget (£20/hour x 8 hours/week x 52 weeks) was converted into flexible funding. Maya used this to:
Pay for weekly mindfulness classes to manage anxiety (£1,000 annually).
Hire a job coach to assist with workplace skills (£5,000 annually).
Fund travel training (£1,500 annually) to help her commute independently.
Outcome: Instead of being tied to fixed care hours, Maya’s ISF allowed her to develop long-term skills, leading to part-time employment.
Traditional Model: David’s family was offered 15 hours of weekly respite care.
ISF Approach: The £15,600 budget (£20/hour x 15 hours/week x 52 weeks) was turned into a flexible ISF. The family used it to:
Arrange 10 hours of weekly respite care (£10,400 annually).
Purchase sensory toys and equipment (£2,500 annually).
Cover the costs of short-term overnight care during emergencies (£2,700 annually).
Outcome: The ISF allowed the family to prioritize their most urgent needs while improving David’s sensory engagement.
Traditional Model: James might have been allocated 40 hours of specialist care per week for health monitoring and mobility support.
ISF Approach: The £41,600 budget (£20/hour x 40 hours/week x 52 weeks) was converted into flexible funding. James’s family used it to:
Hire a small team of specialist carers (£30,000 annually).
Purchase adaptive equipment (£5,000 annually).
Fund physiotherapy sessions (£6,600 annually).
Outcome: The ISF ensured James’s complex health needs were met while providing additional resources for long-term well-being.
Regular reviews ensure that the budget is being used effectively. If outcomes are not being met, or if needs change, the support plan and budget allocation can be adjusted.
In conclusion, the success of Individual Service Funds lies not only in their promise of flexibility and personalisation but in the simplicity and inclusivity of their implementation. By streamlining processes and removing unnecessary complexity, we can make ISFs accessible and effective for everyone involved.
Crucially, every stage of designing and delivering an ISF must be co-produced with those who know the system best—people with lived experience, support providers, and commissioners. This collaboration ensures that ISFs are built on real insights, reflect local priorities, and address the practical realities of delivering meaningful support.
When we bring everyone to the table, we create systems that are not only fit for purpose but genuinely transformative.
Simplifying, co-producing, and listening are the keys to making ISFs work—for people, for communities, and for the future of social care.
The publisher is Citizen Network Research. Individual Service Funds Explainer © Chris Watson 2024.
Individual Service Funds, Self-Directed Support, social care, England, Article
