Disability assistance in Scotland: analysis of consultation responses

4 Disability Assistance for Children and Young People (DACYP)

4.1 Entitlement to DACYP

It is the Scottish Government’s intention that Disability Assistance for Children and Young People will be payable between the ages of 3 months and 18 years. All eligible children may be eligible for the care component. To be eligible for higher rate of mobility, eligible children will need to be at least three years old; and at least five years old to claim the lower rate of the mobility component. Individuals aged 16 or over will apply for working age benefit (PIP) initially with the Department for Work and Pensions, until Social Security Scotland commences delivery of Disability Assistance for Working Age People (DAWAP). At that point, the upper age limit for DACYP will be extended to age 18. Individuals in receipt of DACYP before age 16 may, however, continue to receive DACYP until 18 years of age, provided they continue to meet the qualifying criteria. Questions 42 and 43 asked:

Question 42: Do you agree or disagree with our proposal to provide entitlement to Disability Assistance for Children and Young People to clients aged 0-18 years?

Question 43: If you disagreed, please could you explain why.

A majority (seven in ten) of respondents agreed with the proposal to provide entitlement to Disability Assistance for Children and Young People to clients aged 0-18 years. Only very small numbers (one in fifty) of respondents disagreed:

Table 22: Q42

	Number
	Agree	Disagree	Don’t know	No response
Campaigning / Advocacy (13)	10	-	-	3
Local authority (14)	10	2	-	2
Third sector (40)	21	-	1	18
Other (7)	3	-	1	3
Total organisations (74)	44	2	2	26
Individuals (189)	136	4	5	43
Total respondents (263)	180	6	7	69

Only 15 respondents provided comments at Q43. These were similar to those provided at Q44, so these comments are jointly commented on after Table 23.

4.2 Young People Aged 16-18

The Scottish Government would like to introduce continuity of receiving DACYP up to the age of 18. Questions 44 and 45 asked:

Question 44: Do you agree or disagree with our proposal to extending eligibility, for those in receipt of Disability Assistance for Children and Young People before the age of 16, to age 18?

Question 45: If you disagreed, please could you explain why.

As shown in the following table, the overwhelming majority of respondents (particularly individuals) agreed with the proposal, with only small numbers disagreeing:

Table 23: Q44

	Number
	Agree	Disagree	Don’t know	No response
Campaigning / Advocacy (13)	4	3	-	6
Local authority (14)	12	-	-	2
Third sector (40)	18	1	1	20
Other (7)	1	1	1	4
Total organisations (74)	35	5	2	32
Individuals (189)	140	5	2	41
Total respondents (263)	175	10	4	73

Only 19 respondents opted to provide comments in response to Q45.

The key comment from respondents was agreement that DACYP should be extended to age 18, as that this would provide a seamless transition to adulthood or that it would be more consistent with age limits for other types of welfare support.

Small numbers of respondents thought that the age bracket should be extended further than 18, citing tricky transition points for disabled people between the ages of 16 and 21 as this would take account of several transition points across health and social care services, employability services and the Scottish ILF Transitions Fund age limits. Additionally, the years between 16 and 21 can be a difficult transition period, e.g. because of significant life choices being made at this stage and people not needing to be burdened with dealing with disability benefits or assessments. There were also comments about the need to dovetail this with other supports which are available beyond 18, e.g. CB/CTC until 19, throughcare help until age 25, and ILF Scotland Transition Fund between 16 and 21.

Small numbers of respondents suggested that Disability Assistance for Children and Young People should be payable from birth if a child is born with a serious health condition, whilst a similar number of respondents suggested that all young children require constant care.

A small number of respondents considered that the eligibility restriction should be maintained at 16 as this is the age at which people are considered (lawfully) to be an adult or young adult.

The consultation paper noted that it is anticipated that broad eligibility rules for DACYP will remain similar to Child DLA and explained what criteria are required for lower, middle and high rates. Questions 46 and 47 asked:

Question 46: Do you agree or disagree with our approach to the eligibility rules for the different components of Disability Assistance for Children and Young People?

Question 47: If you disagreed, please could you explain why.

As the following table shows, the majority of respondents agreed with the proposed approach to the eligibility rules for the different components of Disability Assistance for Children and Young People, although substantial proportions either did not know or did not answer. Only a small number disagreed:

Table 24: Q46

	Number
	Agree	Disagree	Don’t know	No response
Campaigning / Advocacy (13)	2	1	2	8
Local authority (14)	12	-	-	2
Third sector (40)	13	5	3	19
Other (7)	3	-	-	4
Total organisations (74)	30	6	5	33
Individuals (189)	107	3	36	42
Total respondents (263)	137	9	41	75

Only 23 respondents provided comments at Q47. Many of these reinforced their general agreement with the approach whilst elaborating on various aspects of the criteria for eligibility.

The main theme on which respondents chose to focus was that of eligibility criteria failing to reflect some situations adequately. A variety of examples were given including the following:

• The impact of mental health issues or serious behavioural difficulties on the ability to plan and follow a journey safely.
• Some conditions (e.g. Sickle Cell Aanaemia) not being understood by assessors.
• Criteria for the higher rate of the DACYP mobility component needing to be altered for under 3’s who require bulky medical equipment.
• Criteria assume conditions fluctuate only within a day / night cycle (often not the case).
• There is a big disparity between the criteria for children and those for adults in terms of available services.

A few respondents wanted to keep eligibility criteria similar to those applying for Child DLA, at least to begin with, for continuity and consistency reasons. Other respondents stated that the Scottish Government should review the criteria after a transition period, taking an evidence-based approach. A third sector organisation suggested that when a child is born with an impairment that will affect their mobility and / or support needs, they should be immediately eligible to apply rather than having to wait three months for the care component or three to five years for the mobility component.

A need for explanations of the criteria was mentioned, with a few respondents saying they did not understand the rules; and others requiring clarification on terminology (e.g. whether ‘day and night supervision’ means constant 24 hour supervision or at various points in the cycle).

4.3 Winter Heating Assistance

The consultation paper explained that the Scottish Government is committed to providing Winter Heating Assistance to families with children in receipt of the highest rate of the care component of Disability Assistance for Children and Young People to supplement winter heating costs for families. Questions 48 and 49 asked:

Question 48: Do you agree or disagree with the proposal to make a £200 Winter Heating Assistance payment to families in receipt of the highest rate care component of Disability Assistance for Children and Young People?

Question 49: If you disagreed, please could you explain why.

As demonstrated in the following table, the majority of respondents agreed with the proposal and only one in ten respondents disagreed:

Table 25: Q48

	Number
	Agree	Disagree	Don’t know	No response
Campaigning / Advocacy (13)	3	2	2	6
Local authority (14)	8	3	1	2
Third sector (40)	19	3	2	16
Other (7)	3	-	-	4
Total organisations (74)	33	8	5	28
Individuals (189)	120	19	7	42
Total respondents (263)	153	27	12	70

A total of 41 respondents made comments at Q49. Many of these respondents made alternative suggestions as to eligibility for the Winter Heating Assistance, with the highest numbers saying that the assistance should be available to all people with any disability payments or benefits (e.g. PIP, DLA):

"It should be all levels of care. Given the additional costs and especially at home it should be reflected in support with winter heating assistance for all recipients of personal care."
(Campaigning / Advocacy Organisation)

Significant numbers of respondents made the following observations about groups they thought should be eligible for the Winter Heating Assistance payment:

• Those on the middle rate care component of DACYP (and upwards) should be eligible.
• Eligibility should be means tested i.e. based on income or family finances. Those on the highest rate care component are not necessarily at the greatest risk of poverty.
• There is no need for a blanket payment as it may not be needed by all.
• Those on the higher rate mobility component should be eligible (more prone to feeling the cold as they are immobile).
• Eligibility should be extended to those of working or pension age.
• Eligibility should be extended for families receiving the DLA highest rate care component during any transition period.

Concerns were expressed by a few respondents that people not on Disability Assistance should have prioritised heating assistance, perhaps by expanding the cold winter fuel payment; examples were given of the elderly or housebound adults who need heat on 24/7 while disabled children may be out at school or a day centre during the day.