Accessible Vehicles Scheme: disability benefits evaluation

Findings

This chapter explores evidence from the data sources described in the methodology chapter to evaluate progress towards the short-, medium-, and long-term policy outcomes. Where there is overlap between different outcomes within the relevant section, these are discussed together.

Short-term outcomes

The short-term outcomes explored are:

• Individuals are aware of the AVE Scheme.
• Individuals understand how to access the AVE Scheme.
• Individuals feel they have adequate choice through the AVE Scheme.
• All providers offer the same high level of service.
• Experience of the AVE Scheme is in line with values of dignity, fairness, and respect.
• Individuals' mobility needs are met through the AVE Scheme.
• Individuals feel the AVE Scheme offers value for money.
• Individuals have a positive view of the AVE Scheme.
• Individuals experience a smooth transition from the previous Motability Scheme to the AVE Scheme.
• Barriers that prevent individuals taking up the AVE Scheme are addressed and reduced.
• Providers are able to access an efficient application process at regular intervals.

Individuals are aware of the AVE Scheme

A secondary analysis of the ADP Official Statistics suggests that new ADP applicants are increasingly aware of the AVE Scheme and how to access it. As shown in Table 1, the proportion of new applicants in receipt of the enhanced Mobility award receiving AVE payment increased over time. For example, in October 2022, 1% (25) of new ADP applicants in receipt of the enhanced Mobility award were in receipt of AVE payments. This increased to 12% (2,435) in October 2023.

As of 31 October 2023, the total number of mobility payments which were for the AVE Scheme was 52,940, and the total value of the payments was £11,126,340. These figures include (a) 13,825 payments to new applicants, with a total value of £2,650,120, and (b) 39,105 payments to case transfer clients, with a total value of £8,473,800.

Table 1 Number and proportion of ADP clients in receipt of the enhanced Mobility award who receive AVE payment, per month and client type

Month	New applicants (n)	New applicants (%)	Case transfers (n)	Case transfers (%)	All clients (n)	All clients (%)
Mar-22	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%
Apr-22	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%
May-22	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%
Jun-22	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%
Jul-22	0	0%	[c]	[c]	0	0%
Aug-22	5	1%	0	0%	[c]	[c]
Sep-22	10	1%	40	18%	50	4%
Oct-22	25	1%	60	19%	90	4%
Nov-22	55	2%	105	17%	160	5%
Dec-22	75	2%	465	22%	535	9%
Jan-23	145	3%	960	25%	1,105	12%
Feb-23	265	4%	1,375	25%	1,640	13%
Mar-23	410	5%	1,945	25%	2,355	14%
Apr-23	565	6%	2,385	25%	2,950	15%
May-23	805	7%	2,955	26%	3,760	16%
Jun-23	1,125	8%	3,515	26%	4,640	17%
Jul-23	1,425	9%	4,045	26%	5,475	18%
Aug-23	1,665	9%	4,515	26%	6,180	18%
Sep-23	2,055	11%	5,335	25%	7,390	18%
Oct-23	2,435	12%	6,125	25%	8,560	19%

Official Statistics for CDP also indicate that new applicants are increasingly aware of the AVE Scheme and how to access it. As shown in Table 2, the number and proportion of new applicants in receipt of the Mobility award receiving AVE payment increased. For example, in September 2022, 10% (65) of new CDP applicants in receipt of the higher-level Mobility award received AVE payment. This increased to 23% (455) in September 2023.

As of 30 September 2023, the total number of mobility payments which were for the AVE Scheme was 55,460, and the total value of the payments was £13,358,290. These figures include (a) 3,625 payments to new applicants, with a total value of £815,970 and (b) 51,835 payments to case transfer clients, with a total value of £12,542,310.

Table 2 Number and proportion of CDP clients in receipt of the higher-level Mobility award who receive AVE payment, per month and client type

	New applicants (n)	New applicants (%)	Case transfers (n)	Case transfers (%)	All clients (n)	All clients (%)
Mar-22	5	4%	180	71%	185	47%
Apr-22	15	8%	295	69%	315	50%
May-22	20	7%	445	68%	465	50%
Jun-22	30	8%	890	66%	920	53%
Jul-22	35	7%	1,555	67%	1,595	57%
Aug-22	50	9%	2,375	65%	2,425	58%
Sep-22	65	10%	2,735	63%	2,800	56%
Oct-22	85	11%	2,860	62%	2,945	55%
Nov-22	100	12%	2,910	62%	3,010	54%
Dec-22	115	12%	2,950	62%	3,065	54%
Jan-23	145	15%	3,030	61%	3,175	53%
Feb-23	170	16%	3,090	60%	3,260	52%
Mar-23	205	17%	3,145	60%	3,345	52%
Apr-23	235	18%	3,160	60%	3,395	52%
May-23	275	20%	3,210	60%	3,485	52%
Jun-23	320	20%	3,240	61%	3,560	51%
Jul-23	375	22%	3,280	60%	3,655	51%
Aug-23	410	22%	3,300	60%	3,710	50%
Sep-23	455	23%	3,350	59%	3,805	50%

The survey of eligible CDP and ADP clients who were not already members of the AVE Scheme found that awareness of the Scheme seemed to be low, with 69 per cent of respondents saying they were unaware of it. A lack of awareness of the Scheme was also the most common reason given for not joining by non-members, with 37 per cent (n=206) of respondents selecting this option.

However, in follow-up interviews with non-members it was apparent that some were only unfamiliar with the new name for the Scheme. Six of the 12 who had written in their survey response that they were unfamiliar with the AVE Scheme were aware they could lease a vehicle or equipment through Motability, though they did not know this was called the AVE Scheme in Scotland. Similarly, some members who were unaware of the AVE Scheme brand thought the Scheme was known as Motability.

"I'm aware of Motability but not AVE." (Non-member)

"I use Motability and have a car but had no idea this was the new name for it in Scotland." (Member)

"I thought, well, it's just a change in name. That's the feeling I got from the website, that things remain exactly as they were. It's still Motability, but it has a new name." (Non-member)

When asked how they found out about the AVE Scheme most members and non-members said that they became aware of it through information contained with their award letter, which is issued once a decision has been reached on a benefit application. Some were informed by third or statutory sector support services, including social workers and health professionals.

Individuals understand how to access the AVE Scheme

Where a person is entitled to a qualifying benefit, Social Security Scotland will inform the person as part of their decision notice that the person can choose to join the Scheme.

However, evidence that individuals understood how to access the Scheme was mixed.

In the survey with non-members over a fifth (22%) said the reason they did not use the Scheme was because they were unsure how to access or start using the Scheme, and 4% said the Scheme was too complicated or difficult to understand.

Some non-member interviewees reported that they did not know they could use their CDP or ADP assistance to lease a vehicle or equipment. Most of these interviewees were aware that there was support available to help disabled people to access vehicles, but they believed that they were ineligible. Various reasons were given by interviewees for why they thought they would not qualify for support, including that: their child was too young to drive, the interviewee did not drive, the Scheme was only for cars or only for cars with specialist adaptations, applicants needed to be more severely disabled.

"I had no idea that that [receiving the higher rate mobility component of CDP or the enhanced rate mobility component of ADP from Social Security Scotland] qualified me for the Scheme at all. So I never, ever looked into it." (Non-member)

Interviewees who were aware of the Scheme understood it reasonably well and knew that it involved using money from their disability benefits to pay for a vehicle or equipment. This understanding was often rooted in experience, either their own or that of a friend or family member, and awareness or knowledge of the pre-AVE Motability Scheme, which was a well-known brand among interviewees.

However, interviewees were not always aware of all the technicalities and details of how the Scheme works, with some misunderstandings and misconceptions reported. For example, a small number thought the Scheme only provided cars, or was only for older people or those with physical disabilities. A few others thought that people who accessed the Scheme automatically gave up their entire CDP or ADP assistance, not just the mobility component, to pay for the vehicle or equipment. Some also thought that the Scheme only provided adapted vehicles, and that the vehicle could only be used by the disabled person.

Individuals feel they have adequate choice through the AVE Scheme

During interviews, members of the Scheme expressed mixed views about the range of vehicles and equipment available through the Scheme. Some interviewees described a good range of vehicles and equipment to choose from.

"There was quite a good choice of cars. I remember the website had said that the selection was more limited than what it used to be just because of availability. But to me, I felt the selection wasn't bad at all." (Member)

"A good selection… there are plenty of options." (Member)

However, others described the range of vehicles and equipment as inadequate, saying that there was a limited choice of vehicles which were in budget and met their needs.

"Only a handful of cars that could fit my wheelchair in… it had to be within that budget because that's the only money I had for the car." (Member)

"The cars on the Scheme weren't the best for what we need…I'm just looking for a spacious car… There weren't many, so then we were looking at medium-sized cars, but if you put the wheelchair in the boot, you wouldn't get a bag in, never mind anything else." (Member)

A few members felt there was a limited choice of Wheelchair Accessible Vehicles due to availability and cost. A couple also stated that due to their young age their options were restricted.

A small number of Client Survey respondents who answered the open-text question about their experiences of the AVE Scheme specifically mentioned the choice of vehicles and equipment it offered. The views expressed by respondents were similarly mixed, and mostly reflected those given by the interviewees. However, one respondent mentioned that only brand new vehicles were available on the Scheme, whilst another felt there was a lack of vehicles to choose from in their part of the country.

"The…stores in Scotland, certainly in the North have very little choice. You are shown one or two scooters and whether you feel safe on them or not, that's your choice!" (Client Survey respondent, Member)

Many Client Survey respondents highlighted the length of time they waited to receive their vehicle after placing an order. As mentioned in the commissioned research report (Annex A), while supply chain delays are an issue across the global motor industry that Social Security Scotland and Motability have no control over, they can still affect people's experiences of the Scheme.

"I've been waiting for months to receive my new vehicle but it looks like it's going to be a few more weeks at least before I do finally get my first Motability car." (Client Survey respondent, Member)

In a few cases, lack of choice was described as a barrier to joining the Scheme. A small percentage (3 per cent, n=19) of non-member survey respondents said a lack of choice of vehicles and equipment within the Scheme was a reason for not joining. A similarly small proportion of respondents (3 per cent, n=15) also identified a lack of choice of providers as an issue.

These non-members explained they could not find a vehicle or equipment suitable to their needs through the AVE Scheme, for example a larger car, an e-bike or a wider range of wheelchairs.

At the time the research was carried out (July 2023 to February 2024), Motability Operations was the only accredited provider. However, the Scheme is designed to include more than one provider and therefore Scheme members were asked their views on this aspect.

Scheme members who took part in interviews expressed mixed views about whether additional providers should be involved alongside Motability. Those who supported the proposal were evenly balanced with those who opposed it, and some were unsure.

The main benefit identified by members was an increase in competition and choice.

"It can only be good because obviously they'll be competing against each other. Things would be better. Don't get me wrong, I think Motability is a superb scheme but they've got a monopoly on it. Somebody else doing it as well, maybe we'd have a healthy competition, it may be good." (Member)

"I think there'd be more choice, wouldn't there, but also, if that means there'd be more availability, then that's a good thing." (Member)

Some members felt that introducing more providers could make the Scheme more complicated, and a few felt that there was no need to involve other providers.

Two Client Survey respondents who answered the open-text question about their experiences of the AVE Scheme specifically called for other providers to be added to the Scheme. One felt that competition amongst providers would be a good thing, whilst the other felt that Motability was too expensive.

A small proportion of non-member respondents to the survey (3 per cent, n=15) identified a lack of choice of providers as a barrier.

All providers offer the same high level of service

At the time the research was carried out, Motability Operations was the only accredited provider.

Some members of the AVE Scheme supported expanding the number of providers but emphasised that any additional providers would have to achieve the same high service standards they have experienced with Motability.

"[Involving additional providers] would be absolutely fine, yeah. As long as they're up to the standards that Motability provides, then yeah, no problem." (Member)

For a few providers, there was confusion about the relationship with Motability. These interviewees were unsure if the Scheme offered the opportunity to be a provider in their own right, or a supplier to Motability.

One dealer expressed concern about how quickly any additional providers could achieve the same standards as Motability, while another who had not applied doubted that their organisation could compete with a large provider like Motability.

Some dealers commented on the high levels of awareness and trust that clients had of Motability and were unsure if other providers could achieve the same. Another questioned whether other providers could achieve the same economies of scale as Motability. One dealer was concerned that involving additional providers could cause regional disparities in the range and types of vehicles and equipment available if some providers operated in some localities but not others.

Five interviews were undertaken with providers who opted not to apply to the most recent accreditation process, in order to explore their reasons. These are set out below. Some of the reasons given relate to providing a high level of service.

A few identified challenges of scaling up to meet the volumes required by the Scheme, and there were concerns about being able to satisfy requirements around breakdown cover, servicing, and customer support. One said there are few organisations or individuals qualified to maintain the equipment they provide, and they felt the requirements around servicing and maintenance would be difficult to deliver consistently, especially in rural areas. Another was concerned that they would not be able to resource the required breakdown cover across large areas.

Two raised issues around the quality and availability of parts. One preferred to order parts in small volumes, noting there are often faults that need modifying. Another said the availability of parts was limited.

One provider who had opted not to apply advocated for a Scheme trial period, to allow organisations to familiarise themselves with the Scheme, monitor the level of demand, and test how their processes would work before committing for a longer term. They suggested this could encourage more providers to apply.

Experience of the AVE Scheme is in line with values of dignity, fairness, and respect

Overall, the experiences of the AVE Scheme described by members were in line with the values of dignity, fairness, and respect.^[2]

Positive experiences reported by members included receiving good service from dealers, and examples of dealers making additional efforts to accommodate the needs of members, such as bringing vehicles to homes for test drives.

"The mobility guy was amazing… it was a really good experience... He just knew about mobility. He explained what the car had… gave us time basically and answered all the questions that I had… and he let me try the car seat in it." (Member)

Many Client Survey respondents who answered the open-text question about their experiences of the AVE Scheme commented that they had a positive experience with providers and/or dealers, highlighting the helpful and understanding service they received. Many also reported that the process of joining the Scheme and getting their vehicle was easy and efficient.

"I have used the same garage for both cars and have had excellent service throughout." (Client Survey respondent, Member)

"I felt like something was going to go wrong, I was shocked at how easy the process was and how there was no stress to it, it took off so much pressure, step by step was just so smooth I couldn't believe it and kept thinking there was going to be a catch to it, but no it is so well done." (Client Survey respondent, Member)

However, some participants highlighted negative experiences. Some felt that dealers seemed disinterested, with a few saying the dealer had not returned their phone calls. A few felt this was because Motability customers are potentially less profitable for dealers than others.

"When you go to garages and you mention mobility, everyone scatters… because they're not making money out of you, so I've learned now that I go through everything and I don't mention mobility till the very last minute." (Member)

Participants also shared a couple of examples of dealers who had demonstrated a poor understanding of disabilities or health conditions.

A small number of respondents who answered the open-text question about their experiences of the AVE Scheme also reported negative interactions with dealers. These mostly related to a perceived lack of updates when waiting for their vehicle.

"The delay was extreme. I understood there would be a significant wait but the garage I felt with was fobbing me off." (Client Survey respondent, Member)

Individuals' mobility needs are met through the AVE Scheme

Interviewees who were members of the Scheme stated that their mobility needs were being met through the AVE Scheme.

The most common reason given by members for joining the AVE Scheme was that it provided an affordable way for them to access a vehicle that meets their mobility needs. Several explained that without the Scheme, they would not have been able to afford a vehicle or equipment or could only afford a smaller or lower specification car that would not meet their needs so effectively.

Members gave various examples of the specific needs that they had for mobility vehicles and equipment which they were able to meet through using the AVE Scheme. These included: needing a larger car to provide space to carry wheelchairs and other bulky equipment related to their or their child's conditions, needing a higher vehicle that is easier for them or their child to get in and out of, needing a car with adequate legroom, and needing an automatic car which would have been difficult to afford without the Scheme.

Some interviewees said they could afford another vehicle or equipment if they did not use the AVE Scheme, but it would not suit their needs so effectively. Members described using the Scheme to access a larger car than they could otherwise afford, often with specific features such as back support, remote heating controls and an automatic gearbox to ensure the vehicle is comfortable and as easy as possible for them to use.

"We just wouldn't have been able to afford a car that suited my needs in any way other than the Motability Scheme." (Member)

"I don't think I would have been able to afford as good a car, as big a car, and the size of the car I've got is great for me - the height of it is good for getting in and out, I struggle to get in and out of smaller cars. So financially, I would have had to have looked at an alternative, but I don't think I would have the car that I've got now." (Member)

A small number of Client Survey respondents who answered the open-text question about their experiences of the AVE Scheme also commented that their mobility needs were met by their vehicle. The examples given by respondents reflected those provided by the interviewees, as outlined above.

Individuals feel the AVE Scheme offers value for money

Interviewees who were members felt the Scheme offered value for money, and the most common reason for joining the Scheme given by members was that it offered an affordable way to access a vehicle that meets their mobility needs. As noted above, some members said that while they could have afforded a vehicle, the Scheme made the most suitable vehicles more affordable for them, indicating value for money. Members also said that receiving a new vehicle as well as road tax, insurance, servicing, and breakdown cover for their weekly payment was good value for money.

However, several Client Survey respondents who answered the open-text question about their experiences of the AVE Scheme commented on aspects of the Scheme they felt were unaffordable. These comments mostly focused on the cost of the advanced payment for a vehicle. An advance payment may be required to secure higher specification vehicles or equipment, although any provider under the Scheme must offer a choice of vehicles and equipment with no advance payment. However, the cost of accessible vehicles in general and the cost of monthly payments were also mentioned by respondents.

"I think it's an amazing scheme but I'm finding the payment I pay each month 260 is a lot for me to lose and I go weeks with no money, I'm having to borrow. I don't put the heating on as I can't pay for energy at all. It's so depressing." (Client Survey respondent, Member)

Some survey respondents (n=299) who were not currently members of the Scheme expressed interest in joining in the future. Of these, almost half (48 per cent) said that they were interested in joining because the Scheme would allow them to access vehicles or equipment that they wouldn't otherwise be able to afford.

However, the survey also asked non-members (n=562) why they were not currently using the Scheme, and just over a quarter (27 per cent, n=150) said 'I need my disability assistance to pay for other things'.

These respondents said they needed all of their payment to cover bills and living expenses, consistent with findings from research with Social Security Scotland Experience Panel members in 2022. It is worth noting that there were a few ADP and CDP clients who thought that all of their disability assistance (not just the mobility component) was required to access the Scheme.

"I would love a mobility car as I struggle to use my own. However, I would lose too much of my payments per month which I need to pay my bills and things." (Non-member)

"I've waited so long to receive any money since I lost my job that I have other things I really need to buy first before I'd even consider spending all my ADP on a new car." (Non-member)

Other non-members (10 per cent, n=57) described the Scheme as too expensive, and some respondents expressed concerns about the advance payments required for certain vehicles or equipment.

"I require a vehicle that would accommodate a wheelchair, dog and passengers. There is not a vehicle available on the Scheme that I can afford." (Non-member)

"I need a WAV car but cannot afford the high deposit so I bought a second hand one." (Non-member)

Individuals have a positive view of the AVE Scheme

Overall, the evidence suggests that members have a positive view of the AVE Scheme.

The Client Survey asked respondents who said they were members of the AVE Scheme (n=481) to rate their overall experience of the Scheme. Of these respondents:

• The majority reported that their experience of the Scheme was 'Very Good' (67 per cent) or 'Good' (25 per cent)
• A small proportion reported that their experience of the Scheme was 'Neither poor nor good' (6 per cent) or 'Poor' (2 per cent).

As described previously, interviewees in the commissioned research who were members of the AVE Scheme reported positive experiences across a range of criteria, including affordability, the inclusion of maintenance and breakdown cover costs, experiences with dealers and the transfer process, and Social Security Scotland's approach, which demonstrated the values of dignity, fairness, and respect. This reflects a generally positive view of the AVE Scheme amongst members.

For non-members, the survey indicated that more than half (52 per cent, n=302) would be interested in using the Scheme in the future.

Individuals experience a smooth transition from the previous Motability Scheme to the AVE Scheme

Case transfer clients – those members who had had their benefits transferred to CDP or ADP from DWP disability benefits - that were interviewed for the evaluation reported no problems with the transition in terms of their lease.

"It was a nice seamless transaction for us. We didn't have to worry about any other bits and pieces. So I had assumed that it was Social Security Scotland that just automatically made those payments across to Motability instead of myself. So that was all good." (Member)

Three members that were interviewed were aware of their lease renewing since transferring to the AVE Scheme, but none had experienced any problems with the process.

Overall, interviewees could not comment on the differences between the AVE and pre-AVE Schemes and had generally noticed no difference – members were satisfied with the service they receive and reported no change since the AVE Scheme was introduced.

Dealers who were interviewed observed no differences between the AVE and pre-AVE Schemes from their or clients' point of view. They reported that they follow Motability's same system and processes, regardless of whether their client is part of the AVE or pre-AVE Scheme.

However, the interviews with dealers highlighted two instances where there had been issues with the transition from DWP to Social Security Scotland. These were where a client was coming to the end of their lease with less than 12 months before the next review of their DWP disability benefits. This meant that they could not apply to Motability as they did not have confirmation that their benefits would continue, and they had not yet received their award letter from Social Security Scotland. Dealers noted that situations like this can be stressful for clients, suggesting that dealers may require more support in these circumstances. This issue has been resolved since the fieldwork was undertaken.

Additionally, a small number of Client Survey respondents who answered the open-text question about their experiences of the AVE Scheme mentioned their transition from the Motability Scheme to the AVE Scheme. Whilst one of these respondents stated that their transition was seamless, the others highlighted issues that they faced. In all of these cases, the respondents said they were approaching (or had passed) the end of their lease, but could not get a new vehicle because they were waiting on a benefit award decision from Social Security Scotland.

"I haven't been able to renew my mobility car due to the length of time I have been waiting for a decision." (Client Survey respondent, Member)

Barriers that prevent individuals taking up the AVE Scheme are addressed and reduced

The survey and qualitative research identified barriers that prevent individuals taking up the AVE Scheme. Many of these are covered in the preceding short-term outcomes, such as:

• Lack of awareness of the Scheme.
• Need to use disability assistance to pay for other things.
• Misconceptions around the proportion of ADP or CDP used to pay for the Scheme.
• Feeling the Scheme is too expensive.
• Uncertainty about how to access or start using the Scheme.
• A perceived lack of choice of vehicles, equipment, or providers.

However, more potential barriers were identified in the research with non-members and are outlined below. Figure 1 shows the reasons given by non-members when asked why they were not using the Scheme.

Figure 1: Why are you not currently using the AVE Scheme? (n=562)

Inability to drive or disqualification from driving

A quarter of survey respondents (25 per cent, n=141) identified an inability to drive as a reason for not using the AVE Scheme. This issue was more pronounced among respondents in less affluent areas: just over a third (34 per cent, n=40) of respondents living in areas classified in SIMD quintile 1 reported not driving, compared with under a fifth (18 per cent, n=6) in the most affluent quintile. It was also more likely to be a barrier among respondents in urban areas (30 per cent, n=86) than rural (11 per cent, n=7); and among ADP clients (26 per cent, n=135) than CDP (14 per cent, n=6).

Many survey respondents explained they are unable to drive because of their condition, either because they are disqualified from driving by the DVLA on medical grounds, or because they feel uncomfortable or reluctant to drive due to their health, even if they are not disqualified.

"I had to return my licence to DVLA due to health issues." (Non-member)

"I am in a situation where the severe pain I suffer from puts me off even thinking about driving at this point in time." (Non-member)

Some non-members reported they were unable to leave the house or were unable to travel far and therefore would not be able to use a vehicle or mobility equipment.

"I am housebound; therefore a car is pointless." (Non-member)

"Right now I'm just too poorly to get the use out of it unfortunately." (Non-member)

However, a few interviewees explained that they might use the AVE Scheme if their condition deteriorates to a point where they need an adapted car. This includes ADP clients who felt their mobility could get worse and CDP clients who explained that their needs might change as their child gets older, particularly if it is necessary to lift them in and out of the car or to carry bulky equipment such as wheelchairs.

"It would only be if my physical condition declined to a point where I did need specialist adaptations to a vehicle that I might consider maybe getting adaptations to my own vehicle or getting a specially crafted vehicle through the AVE Scheme." (Non-member)

"The next [type of] wheelchairs to meet [my son's] needs don't collapse. So right now he is in a buggy that can recline and have head supports and everything. So we have to have that because the wheelchair that has that level of support doesn't fold, it isn't collapsible. So we wouldn't be able to have that in our car. As soon as we can get rid of this car, our next car will be an accessible vehicle." (Non-member)

Some said they do not drive because a friend or family member drives them to places.

A small number reported a misconception that the vehicle can only be driven by the disabled person, rather than their family members or friends.

Preference to use their own vehicle, equipment, or public transport

Sixteen per cent (n=89) of survey respondents preferred to use their own vehicle or equipment. Some explained they use their CDP or ADP entitlement to contribute to fuel and maintenance costs for their own car, rather than leasing a vehicle or equipment through the Scheme. A few noted that their own car is more cost-effective than the AVE Scheme.

"The current payments associated with my car are less than the amount that would be taken off my ADP so it is cheaper to keep my current vehicle." (Non-member)

"I live with my mum and she uses her own car. It is fully paid up and she doesn't want more expensive outlays." (Non-member)

A small number felt that accessing a vehicle or equipment outwith the Scheme offers more choice and flexibility.

"I do not use the AVE Scheme just now as it lets me choose a car more suitable for my requirements… it also gives me the option to upgrade and downgrade more easily if required to fit my needs." (Non-member)

A preference for owning, rather than leasing, their vehicle or equipment was also expressed by a few non-members.

"Another reason I don't go with Motability is I'm really not interested in leasing things, I'd rather something were actually mine." (Non-member)

A small proportion of survey respondents (3 per cent, n=17) said they would rather use public transport, while others commented that they valued being able to use public transport or taxis alongside their own car.

"I like the mix of using my own car, taxi, train, bus, as the situation requires. If I used my mobility component for just a car I would not have the finances to afford public transport and petrol for a car." (Non-member)

"I like to use public transport as I have my bus and railcard as I am over 65 years old." (Non-member)

Previous negative experience of the pre-AVE Scheme

A small percentage of survey respondents (3 per cent, n=16) identified previous negative experiences of the pre-AVE Scheme as a reason for not using the AVE Scheme. Of these 16 respondents, 14 gave details of their experience. The main issue was cost – five of the 14 (36 per cent) said the Scheme was too expensive. Three (21 per cent) said there were not enough providers to choose from and the same number felt they were not treated with dignity or respect by the provider or dealer.

Other reasons

Other reasons given by non-members for not using the Scheme include:

• A concern that the vehicle or equipment might be taken away from them if their benefits entitlement changes before the lease ends.
• Individuals who are ineligible for the Scheme because there is less than 12 months before their CDP or ADP is due for review.
• Having purchased a vehicle or equipment before becoming eligible for or learning about the AVE Scheme.

Some suggestions were made by participants to address some of these barriers, mainly around awareness and understanding of the Scheme.

CDP and ADP clients receive information about the Scheme with their award letter, known as a 'certificate of entitlement'. Interviewees agreed this was an effective way to inform potential members about the Scheme. However, some interviewees did not recall receiving the information.

Participants also put forward other ways to increase awareness of the Scheme, including:

• direct communication from Social Security Scotland (other than award letters) through letters, emails, phone calls or newsletters
• including information about the Scheme with the client's annual review letter
• publishing more prominent information about the Scheme on mygov.scot, Social Security Scotland's website, and social media, or using television adverts to raise awareness of the Scheme
• disseminating information about the Scheme via professionals who work with disabled people, such as healthcare workers and schools attended by CDP clients

Providers are able to access an efficient application process at regular intervals

Feedback about the accreditation process from providers who had applied for accreditation who were interviewed was in general positive. Interviewees reported the Scottish Government team was approachable and supportive, and they found the application process straightforward.

There was positive feedback from all applicants about the Scottish Government team, who were described as approachable, willing to help and prompt when replying to queries.

"Any questions I had, the guys were all available." (Provider)

"What made a really big difference is… you never felt you were too much of a trouble to them if you needed to clarify things. They were very open, very supportive." (Provider)

Two interviewees (both potential applicants for accreditation) attended information sessions, which they found helpful although one decided not to apply. The person who applied said the session was "very transparent and very open".

Some applicants who had applied found it a straightforward process which compared favourably to other similar experiences.

However, there were some potential improvements suggested.

• One applicant suggested it would have been helpful to receive more "facts and figures" about the Scheme (such as the number of people involved, and the volume of equipment required) to help them forecast and plan capacity.
• Another applicant felt some terminology used in the application materials, particularly around data security, could have been simplified. This person said their team was able to help but it could have been off-putting for people who did not have that expertise in their team.
• One unsuccessful applicant said they did not receive feedback but would have liked to, while a small number also mentioned a delay in informing applicants about the outcome of their application.

Applicants also reflected on the factors that encouraged them to apply. They described commercial reasons – the opportunity to reach and help more or new clients – but there was also praise for the AVE Scheme more widely. Interviewees saw it as more equitable than the previous pre-AVE Scheme and praised its aim to offer more personalisation and choice regarding providers and equipment.

One provider noted the opportunities afforded by the AVE Scheme because it includes equipment which is not part of the pre-AVE Scheme.

Providers who did not apply

Five interviews were undertaken with providers who had opted not to apply to the most recent accreditation process, in order to explore their reasons.

Clients' changing circumstances were raised as a deterrent by these providers, who expressed concerns the provider could be left with expensive equipment if a client had to return it due to changes in their condition.

A few of these providers were worried that damage to equipment by a client would not be covered by insurance and expose the provider to financial risk. Similarly, a small number shared concerns about the risk of people returning equipment with damage and the potential cost for providers.

One of these providers doubted that their organisation could compete with a large provider like Motability, and confusion about the relationship with Motability was an issue for a few. These interviewees were unsure if the Scheme offered the opportunity to be a provider in their own right, or a supplier to Motability.

A few providers mentioned the scale of the application, and the extent of information and expertise required as a reason for not applying. This was not the main deterrent but was a factor in their decision.

Medium Term Outcomes

The medium-term outcomes are likely impacted by other factors as well as the AVE Scheme. This section therefore aims to provide an insight into how the Scheme has contributed to these outcomes, where possible.

• Disabled people who access the AVE Scheme have improved independence and quality of life.
• Individuals trust in the AVE Scheme.
• Values of dignity, fairness and respect are embedded.
• Anyone involved in the delivery of the Scheme offers individuals a positive experience (including dealers, providers, and others in the supply chain, e.g. breakdown cover providers, mechanics, tyre/windscreen replacement technicians).
• The AVE Scheme supports people to access and sustain employment, education, and training opportunities.
• The AVE Scheme supports members' wellbeing through improved or sustained access to health and other public services, and to social, cultural and leisure activities.
• Providers deliver effective support in the case of accidents or breakdowns.
• Providers respond to members' changing needs/circumstances over time, including any deteriorations or improvements in health or disabilities, and any changes in eligibility.

Disabled people who access the AVE Scheme have improved independence and quality of life and the AVE Scheme supports members' wellbeing through improved or sustained access to health and other public services, and to social, cultural and leisure activities

Interviews with members found that the Scheme enhanced their independence and mobility by making it easier to complete journeys. This helped with accessing essential appointments and undertaking everyday activities and tasks like getting to work, school and the shops.

Interviewees also stated that the Scheme gave them a sense of freedom by allowing them to travel further than they could before. Members gave examples of travelling further for day trips, holidays, or visiting family members.

In turn, it was found that this increased independence and freedom enhanced members' wellbeing and quality of life by helping them access wider experiences and activities that improve their quality of life. Members felt that these activities would be difficult or impossible without the vehicle or equipment provided by the Scheme.

Many interviewees stated that the Scheme had reduced their reliance on public transport. This had resulted in greater independence through making journeys easier and had also improved quality of life by reducing the stress from journeys. Interviewees noted that journeys by public transport were uncomfortable, inconvenient, tiring, and stressful.

"For us to go on public transport would be quite difficult, challenging. Whereas having the car, having that accessibility, it just gives us a lot of freedom and takes a lot of stress away." (Member)

A few interviewees also highlighted that having access to their own vehicle through the Scheme had reduced physical and mental barriers to making journeys. For example, where conditions such as anxiety or agoraphobia prevented an individual from using public transport.

"There's anxiety, and sometimes, it's just easier for [my son] to just slip into his car and drive, rather than having to face the noise and sensory stuff. It's just his own little world when he's in his car." (Member)

Many Client Survey respondents who answered the open-text question about their experiences of the AVE Scheme described the positive impact the Scheme had on their quality of life. Some of these respondents also described how their vehicle helped them to access services.

"The vehicle has changed my life. It has improved my mental health and has empowered me get out of the house more. It's like a new life." (Client Survey respondent, Member)

"It is an absolute godsend it allows my son to take and accompany me to any appointments get my shopping medication and to reassure me I am not alone." (Client Survey respondent, Member)

Among non-members who were interested in joining in the future, accessing medical and other appointments (79 per cent, n=237), improved quality of life (73 per cent, n=219) and staying independent (71 per cent, n=213) were the most common reasons given for why respondents thought that the Scheme would be helpful to them. Social, cultural and leisure activities were also important reasons to join, with more than half (57 per cent) saying it would allow them to meet up with friends and family, and two-fifths (41 per cent) citing the ability to pursue hobbies and interests.

The AVE Scheme supports people to access and sustain employment, education and training opportunities

Scheme members who were interviewed shared examples of the Scheme making everyday journeys easier, like getting to work and school.

One parent reported that their child had not attended school because of public transport difficulties, but accessing a vehicle through the Scheme now made it possible for them to attend.

"[My child] didn't go to school last year because he couldn't face getting on the bus in the morning." (Member)

A Client Survey respondent who answered the open-text question about their experiences of the AVE Scheme mentioned that their vehicle helped their partner to access employment.

"It has changed our lives. My wife uses the car to work part time as well as look after me. We would be lost without it." (Client Survey respondent, Member)

In the survey of non-members, of those who were interested in joining in the future (n=299), 16 per cent said that they thought the Scheme would be useful for helping them get to work, and 11 per cent said that it would be helpful for accessing education.

Individuals trust in the AVE Scheme

Members view the Scheme positively, as discussed in the short-term outcomes section.

Providing insurance, road tax, servicing, repairs, and breakdown cover encouraged members to use the Scheme. Several members emphasised the peace of mind that this provides if anything goes wrong with their vehicle, as they know the Scheme will cover the vehicle's repairs, and do not have to worry about budgeting for unexpected repair bills.

Some elements of awareness of the Scheme could impact on trust. How the Scheme works and how it impacts on an individual's benefits were described as factors affecting their decision not to join for non-members. In the survey of non-members, 22 per cent (n=124) said that they had not joined because they were uncertain how the Scheme works. Written responses indicate that for some this is because they lack enough information about how the Scheme works, or felt the information that they did have was too complex.

One non-member who was interviewed stated that they did not use the Scheme as they depended on their vehicle to travel to work, and felt the Scheme was not reliable enough due to the possibility of losing their vehicle if their benefits entitlement changed.

Trust in the Scheme may also be linked to trust in the social security system overall. In the previous Social Security Experience Panels report on the (pre-AVE) Motability Scheme, non-members cited a fear of, or lack of trust in, DWP as a reason why they had either not applied for the benefits which would make them eligible, or not applied for the Scheme itself.

Values of dignity, fairness and respect are embedded

All members who were interviewed felt that they had been treated with dignity, fairness, and respect by the Scheme. This was due to the nature of their interactions with Social Security Scotland, Motability, and dealer staff and also because of the overall aims of the Scheme. One commented that the Scheme promotes dignity, respect, and fairness because it widens access to travel for disabled people.

"I think the Scheme itself absolutely provides dignity and respect… the idea that people are able to get about and do things themselves, the outside world is more accessible. That is a huge part of dignity and respect for us." (Member)

Anyone involved in the delivery of the Scheme offers individuals a positive experience (including dealers, providers and others in the supply chain, e.g. breakdown cover providers, mechanics, tyre/windscreen replacement technicians)

In general, interviewees recounted positive experiences of servicing, repairs, and breakdown cover, as detailed earlier.

On the other hand, a few reported some difficulties. This is consistent with the 2022 Experience Panel research findings, which found that servicing and repair experiences depended on the individual garages or dealerships involved.

Difficulties in accessing a Motability network dealer was a problem for a small number of participants, most notably those in rural areas. Two Client Survey respondents who answered the open-text question about their experiences of the AVE Scheme also commented that living in a remote location made it difficult to access organisations involved in the delivery of the Scheme.

"The nearest 'driving school' for the (vehicle) adaptations is in Glasgow and I live in The Scottish Borders so had no way of attending unless I could drive which defeats the object!" (Member)

A couple of interview participants mentioned issues with tyre replacements. One noted that the nearest branch for the approved installer is a long drive for them, and they would have preferred a more local alternative. They also suggested that the Scheme should cover the cost of winter tyres for people who need them. Another had wanted to change their tyres as they were nearing the minimum legal tread limit, but Motability advised the member to run the tyres for another thousand miles. This member would have preferred to change the tyres to reassure themselves of their safety.

Providers deliver effective support in the case of accidents or breakdowns

No members who were interviewed reported any negative experiences of the breakdown service. However, a small number of members had difficulties accessing any type of courtesy car or finding a courtesy car suitable for their needs.

Providers respond to members' changing needs/circumstances over time, including any deteriorations or improvements in health or disabilities, and any changes in eligibility

Members interviewed had not experienced any changes in circumstances during their lease. However, one was concerned they would lose access to the Scheme if their condition had improved by the end of their lease.

A few potential providers also expressed concerns that a client's changing circumstances could negatively affect them, leaving them with expensive equipment if it had to be returned due to an individual's condition changing. The potential providers described this as a deterrent to applying to join the Scheme.

Long Term Outcomes

This section focuses on the impact of the AVE Scheme beyond the individual experience, into wider more societal-level outcomes. As with the medium-term outcomes, these outcomes are likely impacted by other factors as well as the AVE Scheme. Therefore, this section aims to provide an insight into how the Scheme has contributed to these outcomes where possible by linking up the policy commitments and short-term outcomes with the long-term ones.

• Reduced poverty in Scotland
• Reduced inequalities and discrimination
• Individuals trust in Social Security Scotland
• The Scottish social security system is efficient and delivers value for money
• SG de-carbonisation objectives are met through provision of accessible, environmentally friendly, and sustainable modes of transport for disabled people.
• Bridging the mobility gap
• Public services treat people with dignity and respect.

Four of the outcomes identified within the logic model require further data gathering. These are: reduced poverty in Scotland; reduced inequalities and discrimination; SG de-carbonisation objectives are met through provision of accessible environmentally friendly and sustainable modes of transport for disabled people; and the Scottish social security system is efficient and delivers value for money. As has been identified in previous evaluation reports, these first two outcomes relate to the wider impacts of policy changes made to date in the delivery of disability benefits in Scotland, while the third and fourth require more long-term data. An evaluation of these outcomes therefore needs to be explored in combination with the full suite of policy changes.

Individuals trust in Social Security Scotland

While there are many different factors which will impact on an individual's trust in Social Security Scotland, there is evidence that the AVE Scheme has had a positive impact on members' opinions of the agency. For example, the Client Survey asked respondents if they felt they could trust Social Security Scotland. Amongst those who reported being members of the AVE Scheme and answered the question (n=473):

• 74 per cent strongly agreed or agreed that they could trust Social Security Scotland
• 20 per cent neither agreed nor disagreed that they could trust Social Security Scotland
• 4 per cent strongly disagreed or disagreed that they could trust Social Security Scotland.

In the commissioned research, a few interviewees provided positive feedback about the agency and their interactions with it. Providers and dealers also reported positive experiences of interacting with the Scottish Government.

Some interviewees commented positively about Social Security Scotland more generally, and the dignity, fairness and respect the agency demonstrates.

"I think the system works well. The application process, the decision-making, the turnaround, everything was done very, very well. I think government agencies get a lot of criticism. In some cases, it's justified, but at the same time, this is a very positive example of the system and the Scheme working very well." (Member)

"I did find that the assessment process was so much easier, and I felt as though people were really listening… It wasn't so much about the money or the ability to access Motability. It was about being believed. I think that was such a big relief… any interactions I've had with them [Social Security Scotland] over the phone have been very, very positive." (Member)

Bridging the mobility gap

Research suggests disabled people make fewer journeys than non-disabled people^[3], which could impact their mobility, wellbeing, economic contribution, and quality of life. There is some evidence from this evaluation that suggests the AVE Scheme may be helping to bridge this mobility gap, such as an increase in take up of the Scheme, combined with members reporting improved mobility. However, there are many contributory factors to the mobility gap other than the AVE Scheme.

Public services treat people with dignity and respect

The Client Survey asked respondents if they felt Social Security Scotland had treated them with dignity. Amongst those who reported being members of the AVE Scheme and answered the question (n=466), 85 per cent strongly agreed or agreed that Social Security Scotland treated them with dignity, while 11 per cent neither agreed nor disagreed, and 3 per cent strongly disagreed or disagreed.

The Client Survey also asked respondents if they felt Social Security Scotland had treated them with respect. Amongst those who reported being members of the AVE Scheme and answered the question (n=460), 87 per cent strongly agreed or agreed that Social Security Scotland treated them with respect, while 9 per cent neither agreed nor disagreed, and 3 per cent strongly disagreed or disagreed.

There is also some evidence from the commissioned research that suggests that the public services involved in the AVE Scheme treat people with dignity and respect. Members who were interviewed spoke positively about the dignity, fairness and respect demonstrated by the Scheme and Social Security Scotland. However, there are many more public services outwith the Scheme.