Disability benefits evaluation - case transfer: qualitative research - annex A

1. Executive summary

Background

The Scotland Act (2016) devolved some social security powers to the Scottish Government for the first time. Most of these relate to disability benefits and carers’ benefits. Social Security Scotland, the organisation responsible for the delivery of these benefits, was set up in 2018 and the programme of devolution is expected to be completed by 2025/26. A major element of this programme is the transfer of around 700,000 child and adult disability benefit cases from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to Social Security Scotland.

In November 2022, the Scottish Government commissioned Ipsos Scotland to undertake qualitative research into the experiences and outcomes for clients whose cases are being transferred, and the experiences and perspectives of staff delivering this work. The aim of the research was to help inform improvements to the case transfer process by identifying which elements are working well and what needs to change. Specifically, it explored the experiences of people whose cases are transferring to/from:

• Child Disability Payment (CDP) from Disability Living Allowance for children (DLAC).
• Adult Disability Payment (ADP) from either Personal Independence Payment (PIP) or Disability Living Allowance (DLA).

Aims of the research

The research sought to answer the following questions:

1. What is working well and what needs to be improved with regard to case transfers?

2. What differences in experience can be drawn from clients whose cases are transferring from different benefits?

3. What are the key differences clients are experiencing in the assessment processes compared to that with DWP and how do they feel about these differences?

4. Has the case transfer process been executed in line with policy principles?

5. What short-, medium-, and longer-term impacts did the case transfer experience have on clients?

Methods

The research took a qualitative approach using semi-structured interviews and (for some staff) focus groups. The perspectives and experiences of the following groups were explored:

• Clients whose cases had transferred from DWP to Social Security Scotland. Clients were asked about their overall experience of the case transfer process as well as details of different elements including: their understanding of what would happen; their interactions with Social Security Scotland and/or DWP staff; their experiences of the review (where applicable); what they thought worked well; and what they thought could be improved.
• Social Security Scotland staff involved in the case transfer and review processes. These staff were asked for their perspectives on the client experience as well as the staff experience. They were asked what aspects of the process worked well; what challenges they encountered; and what they thought could be improved. They were also asked about the training, support, and decision-making guidance they have access to.

Main findings

Case transfer key findings

• Letters from Social Security Scotland were generally felt to be clear, although clients’ accounts indicated mixed levels of understanding of the transfer process, particularly around change of circumstances.
• Clients reported that their payment was continuous during the transfer process. However, there were reports of impacts on other benefits and support.
• The transfer was seen as “safe and secure” in the sense of the correct payments being made at the correct time, although some clients felt it had taken too long.
• Communication between DWP and Social Security Scotland and clients was not always viewed as clear and consistent.
• Clients described Social Security Scotland staff as friendly and helpful, although there were frustrations about long waits to get through to speak to staff by telephone.
• Clients had a positive or neutral view towards Social Security Scotland by the time the transfer was complete. The level of trust in the agency was generally higher than with the DWP.

Review process key findings

• Clients reported that their payment was continuous during the review process.
• Clients were reassured and relieved that they would not have to undergo a face-to-face assessment.
• Clients’ experiences of the review process varied depending on the circumstances of their transfer from the DWP (e.g. those reporting a change of circumstances found the forms more tiresome to complete than those who were due a review).
• Those who received an outcome that met or exceeded their expectations felt the decision was right and that their case had been considered fairly.
• Those who did not receive the outcome they had hoped for felt disappointed. While some acknowledged that the decision was nonetheless fair, others felt that their circumstances had not been fully considered.
• Clients described the review process as easier than they thought it would be, with Social Security Scotland staff widely viewed as helpful, friendly and reassuring.
• However, clients still felt worried about the process and the outcome.
• Where there were issues (e.g. lack of clarity around timescales, uncertainty over backdating payments, communication errors or knock-on impacts on other benefits) this exacerbated feelings of stress and anxiety.

Staff perspectives

• Staff generally felt that the transfer and review policy commitments are being met, with the exception of clear communication with individuals.
• There was a perception that new ADP and CDP applications had been prioritised over transfer cases which had contributed to initial issues around transfer and review processes. Staff experienced challenges using the Social Programme Management System (SPM) to process transfers and reviews. However, issues are being identified and addressed.
• Staff felt improvements to resources in terms of staffing, guidance and support would help them to deliver case transfers and reviews efficiently and effectively, and lead to a better client experience.

Conclusions in relation to the research questions

1. What is working well and what needs to be improved with regard to case transfers?

What is working well:

• Clients generally felt that they had been treated with dignity, fairness and respect.
• Clients continued to receive the correct payments at the correct time.
• Those with cases transferring from DLAC to CDP and from PIP to ADP generally found the case transfer process straightforward. PIP clients also tended to say that the review process was easier than they had expected it to be.
• Clients were very positive about their interactions with Social Security Scotland staff and felt they had been treated with dignity, fairness and respect.
• Clients tended to say that they were happy that their benefit was now being administered by Social Security Scotland.

What needs to be improved:

• The length of time it took to complete the whole process (transfer plus review). Reducing this time would have the biggest impact on clients transferring from DLA.
• More clarity on timescales and progress updates. Clients often reported at least some anxiety about the process and some experienced a great deal. Worries were exacerbated by not knowing how long they were going to have wait.
• More clarity for clients on aspects of the process. Interviews with clients revealed a lack of understanding about the process where they had reported a change of circumstances. There was also a lack of understanding about how the backdating of payments would work. Staff also noted that clients were confused about these issues.
• For those transferring because they had reported a change in circumstances, the length of the review form was a problem. Clients found it onerous and tiring to fill in and they frequently reported that it took them two or three sittings to complete it.
• Clients felt it would be helpful if the call holding system provided clients with an indication of the queue length and likely wait times.
• Ensuring staff are clear which forms should be used in different circumstances.
• Continuity with other benefits or support, as there were issues reported with the Carer’s Allowance, Motability leases and Blue Badges.
• Staff felt that more of the job-specific training should be delivered by Learning and Development and that there was currently too much reliance on ‘consolidators’ (more experienced staff training newer staff).
• There was a view among staff that calls should be directed to different departments rather than Client Advisors having to answer all calls including calls about other benefits.

2. What differences in experience can be drawn from clients transferring from different benefits?

• CDP clients typically found the case transfer element straightforward, although parents had a few concerns and some anxiety in cases where it took longer than expected.
• The main issue for DLA clients was the length of time the whole process took (transfer and review). Most of the DLA clients we spoke to had transferred because they had reported a change in circumstances. For them, the transfer element was a delay of 13-17 weeks before their review process could start. Among DLA clients who had received a review outcome, the overall timescales for both elements ranged from six months to a year. They tended to experience a considerable amount of stress and anxiety during this time period.
• ADP clients transferring from PIP were happier with their experience of case transfer and review than those transferring from DLA. Their relief about the review process being so much easier than they had expected (based on their experiences or expectations of a DWP review) may have overcome concerns about the waiting time that they might otherwise have had.
• Staff felt that DLA clients needed more reassurance than PIP clients. They put this down to them having been on that benefit for many years and not being used to changes to it.

3. What are the key differences clients are experiencing in the assessment processes compared to that with the DWP and how do they feel about these differences?

• Clients reported key differences in how they were treated by staff and the lack of face-to-face assessments (an aspect that they had found “harrowing” and “daunting”).
• Social Security Scotland staff were widely viewed as helpful, friendly and reassuring. Clients felt that they were listened to and not judged (in contrast to the DWP).
• Overall, there was a perception among clients that Social Security Scotland is an easier agency to deal with, and takes a more person-centred approach, than the DWP.

4. Has the case transfer process been executed in line with policy principles?

• The case transfer process has been executed in line with the policy principles of correct payment made at the correct time, and no re-applications or face-to-face DWP reassessments.
• In relation to the commitment “Complete as soon as possible while maintaining safe and secure, the transfer was seen as “safe and secure” in the sense of the correct payments being made at the correct time. Some clients felt it had taken too long, however, we cannot comment on whether the process could have been completed more quickly without jeopardising the “safe and secure” element.
• Letters from Social Security Scotland were generally felt to be clear, however, there were mixed levels of understanding about the process. Communication between the DWP, Social Security Scotland and clients was not always viewed as clear or consistent. A lack of updates on the progress of reviews increased clients’ worry and stress about the outcome.
• Client perceptions of the review outcome were mixed. Those who received an outcome that met or exceeded their expectations felt the decision was right. Those who did not receive the outcome they hoped for felt disappointed – while some acknowledged that the decision was nonetheless fair, others did not think their circumstances had been fully considered.
• Clients described the review process as easier than expected, with Social Security Scotland considered to be person-centred in its decision-making. However, clients still worried about the process.

5. What short, medium, and longer-term impacts did the case transfer experience have on clients?

Short- term:

• Some clients understood what is happening and when. Others did not think the information provided was clear and this prompted them to contact Social Security Scotland for clarification.
• Clients felt throughout that the transfer was safe and secure (i.e. that the right amount was paid on time).
• Clients knew who to contact for help and support.
• Clients experienced a smoother and easier process than expected, however, for some there were issues which caused stress and anxiety.
• Clients generally had a positive experience of the review process.

Medium-term:

• Clients tended to develop a positive relationship with Social Security Scotland while some remained neutral.
• Clients experienced reduced stress and/or anxiety about the prospect of future reviews or assessments, although some anxiety remained due to a general worry about payments being stopped.
• In most cases, clients felt that decision-making was fair and transparent.
• Clients generally felt treated with dignity, fairness and respect by Social Security Scotland. There were exceptional cases where clients felt their individual circumstances had not been considered in the review process.

Long-term:

• Broadly speaking, clients felt trust in Social Security Scotland – although some will be tentative about this until they have had more experience.
• Some clients were satisfied with the nature of the communication with Social Security Scotland, however, some communication issues were highlighted.
• Clients generally felt that they have been treated better by Social Security Scotland than they had been by the DWP.
• Clients generally said they would know how to report a change in circumstances in future and would feel comfortable doing so (although this was not a universal view).