Care Leaver Payment: consultation analysis

7 Applicant income and eligibility for other financial support (Q12 and Q13)

7.1 This chapter presents respondents’ views regarding any impact an individual’s income should have on their eligibility for a Care Leaver Payment and whether receipt of this payment should impact on any other financial support they receive.

7.2 The Scottish Government proposed that an individual’s income should have no impact on their eligibility for the Care Leaver Payment, and that the payment should not affect their entitlement to other types of support – for example, support received through the benefits system. The consultation contained two questions inviting views on these issues.

Question 12: What are your views on an applicant’s income impacting their eligibility for the payment? Please explain your answer.

Question 13: What are your views on this payment impacting an individual’s entitlement to other support? Please explain your answer.

Applicant income and effect on eligibility for payment (Q12)

7.3 Question 12 asked for views about whether an applicant’s income should have an impact on their eligibility for a Care Leaver Payment. This was an open question and, altogether, 66 respondents – 33 organisations and 33 individuals – provided comments. The views expressed are discussed below.

7.4 There was virtually unanimous support for the proposal that an individual’s income should have no impact on their eligibility for the Care Leaver Payment. Just three (3) individuals dissented from this view.

7.5 A range of respondents (both organisations and individuals) simply said they agreed with the proposal. The following main points were made by those who went on to elaborate their views:

• Means testing can lead to low uptake (as providing personal information can be perceived as intrusive and uncomfortable), social stigma, and unnecessary bureaucracy, and would affect individuals in the ‘middle of the income spectrum’ who could genuinely benefit from the payment. In relation to the point about the deterrent effect of bureaucracy, evidence was cited that young people with care experience are already missing out on financial support that they are entitled to because it can be too difficult to find out about what support is available and to submit a claim.
• Young people moving on from care may be in a precarious financial situation which means that (i) any assessment of their (true) financial situation would be difficult to do properly and might be misrepresented, and (ii) the administrative cost of undertaking such an assessment could be large (and by implication not worthwhile).
• It would be unfair and wrong to penalise individuals who had worked hard (at school and / or college / university) so that they could get a job with a good salary.
• It would be wrong to create an additional barrier for young people leaving care. The payment should come with no conditions; it should not be taxable or seen as income (either for the young person themselves, or for their carer).
• This proposal (i.e. that an individual’s income should have no impact on their eligibility) simply mirrors the scenario for other young people – who receive financial support from their families as they move into independent living.

7.6 Two individuals who dissented from this view said (i) that the payment should be means tested, and (ii) that it should not be available if young people have an income such as a college bursary or other income (a threshold of £25k was suggested). A third individual said that young people leaving care should not receive the payment directly – rather it should be used on their behalf to ‘set them up’ for leaving care.

Effect of payment on individual’s entitlement to other support (Q13)

7.7 Question 13 asked for views about whether the payment should have an impact on an individual’s entitlement to other (financial) support. This was an open question and, altogether, 65 respondents – 34 organisations and 31 individuals – provided comments. The views expressed are discussed below.

7.8 There was virtually unanimous support for the proposal that receipt of this payment should not negatively impact an individual’s entitlement to other support. Only one individual dissented from this view.

7.9 A range of respondents (both organisations and individuals) simply said they agreed with the proposal, emphasising that the Care Leaver Payment should be seen as an additional, stand-alone payment which did not replace other support. The following main points were made by those who went on to elaborate their views:

• It would be important to communicate with both local and national organisations in advance of implementing the payment to ensure that their processes and procedures did not disadvantage recipients of the payment. Specific organisations mentioned in this regard included local authorities, Social Security Scotland, Student Awards Agency Scotland, Scottish Funding Council, and Department of Work and Pensions. (Note, however, that one individual expressed scepticism that other organisations would implement the guidance to treat this as a stand-alone, non-taxable payment – they thought it would be used as a reason to hold up any other benefits due.)
• The Care Leaver Payment should have no impact on the individual’s entitlement to the following payments: local authority Section 29 payments as well as any other local authority benefits, grants or reductions; the package of support for care leavers offered via the corporate parenting responsibilities of colleges and universities (including the Care Experienced Bursary); Community Care Grants from the Scottish Welfare Fund; Child Benefit payments; Universal Credit; and employability support.
• The Care Leaver Payment should not be considered as part of an individual’s taxable income.
• There could be an unintended impact for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children who receive a Care Leaver Payment – because the receipt of the full amount could put recipients over the threshold for legal aid, affecting their ability to make asylum claims. It was suggested that this unintended consequence could be avoided with appropriately drafted legislation.

7.10 The (one) individual who dissented from the majority view said that young people in care ‘get a lot financially which leads to unattainable expectations later in life’.