Disability benefits evaluation: supporting information

Findings

In this chapter, the data sources outlined in the Methodology section on page 13 (qualitative commissioned research and the Client Survey) are used to evaluate progress towards short-term, medium-term, and longer-term anticipated outcomes of supporting information policy.

Progress towards short-term anticipated outcomes

The short-term outcomes of the supporting information policy commitments are:

• Individuals know how to access supporting information guidance and support.
• Individuals understand what supporting information is most useful.
• The supporting information process is simple and straightforward and supporting information is relevant and high quality.
• A trust-based approach is applied to the collection and use of supporting information.
• Experience of the supporting information process is in line with dignity, fairness, and respect.
• Supporting information is used to make a fair and transparent decision.
• Individuals feel less stress and/or anxiety about the supporting information process.

Individuals know how to access supporting information guidance and support

Interviewed applicants had varying levels of knowledge about how to access supporting information guidance and/or support. Guidance in the application form was the most commonly referred to source of information with less mention of accessing Social Security Scotland or Scottish Government webpages. There were also mixed views about the clarity and helpfulness of guidance within the application form on submitting supporting information.

Some interviewed applicants mentioned accessing support through case managers, local delivery staff, and third sector organisations. Furthermore, 38% of survey respondents said they had got help or support to complete their application, 41% for ADP and 29% for CDP. As Figure 1 shows, of those who had support, 41% said that this was from a friend or family member, 33% said this was from Social Security Scotland, 25% said this was from a support organisation such as Citizens Advice Scotland, welfare rights, advocacy, and money or housing support organisations, and 8% said this was from health services.

Figure 1 Proportions in response to question: What help or support did you get to complete your application?

41% from a friend or family

33% from Social Security Scotland

25% from a support organisation such as Citizens Advice, Welfare rights, advocacy, and money or housing support

8% from health services

Source: Client Survey Data

Of those who said they had received help from Social Security Scotland, 94% agreed or strongly agreed that it was easy to get help from them to complete their application. Interviewed applicants described Social Security Scotland staff as "really helpful", "understanding", "approachable", "patient", and "compassionate". Overall, these phone conversations were seen by individuals as very valuable for understanding what supporting information to provide.

Support organisations are an important source of advice around supporting information and the application process more generally. However, in the interviews, third sector organisations also exhibited some misunderstandings about supporting information. This lack of understanding specifically involved what constitutes useful supporting information, who should be providing supporting information, and in what circumstances they should be providing supporting information.

Overall, there is room to improve individuals' and external stakeholders' knowledge and awareness of different types of support and guidance available.

Individuals understand what supporting information is most useful

As described on page 22, perceptions of the guidance available on application forms was mixed. This may also impact here and contribute to individuals knowing what supporting information is most useful.

80% of survey respondents who provided supporting information agreed or strongly agreed that it was clear what they should supply. Interview data also showed that applicants had some understanding of what supporting information is most useful.

Specifically, interviewed applicants mentioned a variety of different types of supporting information, including that from professionals (GPs, occupational therapists, teachers, and health visitors) and their wider support network. Where applicants were able to compare their experiences with applying for disability benefits administered by DWP, they reported that it was clearer what supporting information was required and most useful.

However, interview data also showed that there was a lot of misunderstanding and lack of awareness around this. Common misunderstandings were:

• Not knowing that supporting information could be from their wider support network.
• Not knowing that Social Security Scotland can contact professionals on their behalf.
• Not understanding that one piece from a professional may be sufficient, or large amounts of documentation are not necessarily needed.
• Not knowing that Social Security Scotland cannot (at the time of interviews) directly contact their wider support network even when their contact details are provided.
• Being unsure whether having no diagnosis would work against them.
• Expecting that staff would probably give more weight to supporting information from professionals than from their wider support network.

Indeed, 38% of survey respondents reported that the reason they received a call from Social Security Scotland after submitting their application was to ask for more supporting information.

Furthermore, Third Sector staff and Local Delivery staff highlighted this lack of awareness that applicants have of the different types of supporting information they can provide. They reported that the most vulnerable groups tend to show less awareness about these different types of supporting information. - Local Delivery staff member

I have to explain things maybe slightly differently to how it's written on the form, to help clients understand… when you mention [supporting information] their minds seem to just go blank. They don't know what we want, they don't know what they have in the house… so I list plenty of examples to help them think of things.

Interviewed applicants tended to put more weight on supporting information from medical professionals as it was seen to best "back-up" the detail included in their application. This highlights the need for better communication about what supporting information is most useful. Whilst one piece of supporting information from any professional familiar with the applicant's needs is usually needed, applicants' tendency to put more weight towards supporting information from medical professionals may lead to people disregarding supporting information from other professionals that may be important in explaining their condition, disability, or needs.

These issues could be further exacerbated in cases where the individual cannot access supporting information from a medical professional and may lead them to think that they cannot provide the "correct" supporting information.

The supporting information process is simple and straightforward, and supporting information is relevant and high quality

Overall, interview data showed that applicants found the process simple and straightforward. Those who had previous experience of applying to DWP also said that many aspects of the supporting information process were much better with Social Security Scotland. Client Survey findings were also positive. Of those who provided supporting information with their application:

• 84% agreed or strongly agreed that it was clear how to include supporting information,
• 80% agreed or strongly agreed that it was clear what information they should supply,
• 78% agreed or strongly agreed that it was easy to provide supporting information, and;
• 71% agreed or strongly agreed that it was easy to get the supporting information they wanted.

Social Security Scotland's ability to gather supporting information on the individual's behalf seemed to be a contributing factor. Applicants thought this simplified and sped up the process. Survey data also showed that the main reason for asking Social Security Scotland to gather information on their behalf was because individuals thought staff would be able to obtain the information faster than them (47%). However, some interviewed applicants were not fully aware of this possibility, with others saying that they only became aware once they were told this by case managers.

Once I had the phone call [with Case Manager who reassured him he could just give consultants' names], the pressure was taken off me […] but it would have been nicer to know from the beginning that that was enough. - Successful CDP applicant

Furthermore, interview data indicated that this process can be lengthy regarding the time it takes for case managers to obtain supporting information and consequently, delays in the decision-making process. Social Security Scotland staff highlighted that some of the main causes of these delays revolved around professionals not using the SCI Gateway system (the system used for requesting supporting information from GPs) and not complying with requests from case managers.

Therefore, although the process of gathering information can make applicants' experience of the overall process more simple and straightforward, there is also a need to communicate to those applicants who can provide their own supporting information easily that they should try to do so in order to avoid lengthy processing times.

The online system for uploading documents was another factor contributing to the ease of the supporting information process. Interviewed applicants said it was convenient and easy to use. Being able to upload photos of documents to the Social Security Scotland system was felt to be easier than posting copies of them – which was what required at the time some of these people had applied to DWP. Applicants who were less familiar with IT, or were unsure how to upload documents, said that Social Security Scotland staff were helpful in talking them through how to upload documents.

However, those who were more computer literate found it easier to use the online system and not all applicants were aware they could supply their supporting information online, suggesting a need to increase awareness of the online system. In addition, applicants suggested some improvements:

• Being able to upload several documents at once in a zipped folder.
• It being clear that they can upload additional supporting information after the original supporting information has been submitted (those who raised this were not aware this is possible).

Survey data also provided an insight into how simple and straightforward different groups found the supporting information process. There was some evidence to suggest that individuals with more than one area affected were less likely to have an easy experience of submitting supporting information compared to those reporting one area affected. A lower proportion agreed or strongly agreed that:

• it was clear how to include supporting information (82%-84% of those reporting two to nine areas affected vs. 90% of those reporting one area affected),
• it was clear what information I should supply (75%-80% vs 85%)
• it was easy to provide supporting information (70%-78% vs. 83%), and
• it was easy to get the supporting information I wanted (61%-69% vs. 79%).

Finally, interview and survey data indicates that the quality of supporting information supplied by individuals is mixed. Interviews with Social Security Scotland staff highlighted that many applications are submitted without any supporting information at all. Furthermore, staff said that some supporting information was contradictory to what was included in the application, some of it contained a lack of detail, only part of a document or blurry images of documents.

I think they just don't know what it means… and you've called them to say… I'm just looking to know what support it is that you need [around supporting information]. "I just didn't know what to send" …and then they are like, right, okay, I can get that, I just wasn't sure what was actually meant by it. I feel as if they don't have a proper understanding of what is actually meant by supporting information and I think this is why we get so many cases that don't have any on it. -CDP Case Manager

Survey data also supports these findings, where 53% of respondents reported that they did receive a call from Social Security Scotland after they had submitted their application to ask for more information or to clarify something. Of these, 38% had been contacted to ask for more supporting information, 10% had been contacted to ask for authorisation to contact a professional to collect supporting information, 6% had been contacted to clarify contact details for a professional to collect supporting information, and 2% had been contacted to ask if they need help sourcing supporting information.

Indeed, that participants' responses indicated a lot of remaining uncertainty as to what supporting information is most useful also suggests that some supporting information submitted may not be of a high quality.

A trust-based approach is applied to the collection and use of supporting information

Whilst there was evidence that most applicants in the qualitative research trusted the supporting information process, there were differences between successful and unsuccessful applicants. Successful applicants felt that a trust-based approach had been applied to both the collection and use of their supporting information. They reported that they felt Social Security Scotland staff trusted them and the information they provided them with about their conditions or disability. Individuals also said that Social Security Scotland did not question any aspects of the application and did not ask for any further information.^[1] Furthermore, individuals said that staff were sympathetic and understanding to their situation.

They are not these big bad [people] sitting in ivory towers. They trust both ways – they look at your info and they are agreeing with you. - Successful CDP applicant

On the other hand, unsuccessful applicants were more likely to indicate that they did not know if they or their supporting information had been trusted.

The way in which the Case Managers who took part in the qualitative research spoke about their approach to decision-making indicated they were starting from a position of trust. However, they highlighted difficulties they faced in trying to achieve a balance between starting from a position of trust, considering all the information provided in the application form and the supporting information available, and identifying any areas where they need clarification in order to make a decision.

I think [staff] are aware of [position of trust] and always try and adopt that sort of attitude when they are dealing with the clients, but sometimes something just doesn't look right and it might need a bit of further investigation. -Operations Manager

Case Managers were clear that they are not looking for everything in an application to be supported by supporting information, just enough to be able to justify a decision to their Decision Team Manager or other staff who quality assured the decision. This was contrasted with the approach under DWP, where staff said that they used to require all the information in the application to have some sort of corroboration, whether from the supporting information or a physical assessment. Staff commented that, where supporting information supports one thing in the application form, then other information is usually supported too.

Most of the time the application can help support itself, you just need that supporting information to confirm at least one thing or to support one thing and then you can go to everything else. -ADP Case Manager

Senior staff have played a role in reminding Case Managers of this trust-based approach. There was a suggestion that it is not always easy, in practice, for staff to take a position of trust. This is because there is a tension between requiring supporting information to support the decision-making process, and trusting the individual where information has not been 'confirmed' by another party.

…whilst we do try and, you know, to trust everything that the client is saying, I think sometimes there is such an urge to make sure that we get that supporting information, I don't know if that is a bit of a disconnect between fully trusting the client if you are then saying we need all this information from a professional before we can even progress things. -CDP Decision Team Manager

When staff felt unsure about decisions in this regard, they would have a discussion with senior colleagues and refer to decision-making guidance. Decision Team Managers explained that, as Case Managers gained experience, they felt more confident in their decision-making.

In general, staff spoke positively about starting from a position of trust and felt it was in keeping with the overall approach of Social Security Scotland. That said, discussions around trust raised concerns among some staff who took part over what amount of supporting information they do need in order to award, particularly when it comes to supporting information from an individual's wider support network.

…sometimes I would feel uncomfortable about giving someone points for something that has not been confirmed, like giving out money that they could potentially just be lying about, I think you need to be careful about that as well. -ADP Case Manager

This concern was mentioned by participating staff at all levels, and more so among those working on ADP applications. Again, staff were aware that words such as 'proof' and 'evidence' were not deemed as appropriate language, but these words were still used by some:

…it is taxpayers' money that we are awarding people, there needs to be some…it's like folk are afraid to say words like 'proof'. You know, 'where is the proof?' -ADP Decision Team Manager

The staff who made these points felt there is a contrast, or even a contradiction, between trusting applicants while also requiring supporting information from them, again highlighting the difficulties staff face when having to make a real decision in practice about someone's level of need and therefore entitlement to award. This tension is perhaps something which could be addressed directly in staff training on supporting information.

Experience of the supporting information process is in line with dignity, fairness, and respect

When survey respondents were asked how they felt they were treated throughout the application process, 85% either agreed or strongly agreed that they had been treated fairly and respectfully. Again, it should be borne in mind that the majority of respondents were successful in their applications. One of the key reasons to applicants thinking that they had been treated fairly was because of their application being successful. Indeed, of those who agreed with their decision, 92% said they were treated fairly and respectfully, compared to 44% of those who did not agree with their decision.

Interviewed applicants who had previous experience with the DWP compared their experiences and highlighted some of the positive impacts going through the supporting information process with Social Security Scotland had had on them. They indicated that their experience of the supporting information process was in line with dignity, fairness, and respect. This was highlighted through their belief that Social Security Scotland staff took a more person-centred approach with them, and that staff tried to understand the individual and their needs more.

However, interviewed unsuccessful applicants were less likely to feel that they had been treated fairly or with dignity and respect. This was evident from how they felt their application and supporting information were considered, and their interactions with Social Security Scotland. Specifically, when they spoke about their contact with Social Security Scotland staff they said, even though they were respectful, they were unhelpful because they ultimately did not receive an award. They were also more likely to have mixed feelings about whether their supporting information had been considered fairly, and to feel frustrated by the whole process.

Supporting information is used to make a fair and transparent decision

In interviews, successful applicants felt their supporting information had been considered fairly. Whilst being successful in their award was clearly a contributing factor, applicants also commented on the clarity and transparency of information provided to them in the decision-making letters which helped them to understand why they had been given the award.

Well, obviously since they gave me the money, I'm going to say I think they're great. No, on the whole obviously I got the award letter which says in detail what they have considered for each point in awarding points I think and I thought that it was professionally done and I think they did a good job and I think, yes, I mean thumbs up to them. […] Had I been unsuccessful for the award my opinion might have been different. -Successful ADP applicant

Survey data revealed that 62% of unsuccessful respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that it was clear why their application had been unsuccessful. This did not speak to the clarity of the decision letter specifically, so it is unclear whether this disagreement was due to lack of clarity on the decision letter or lack of clarity more generally.

In interviews, some unsuccessful applicants wondered if they had been unfairly disadvantaged due to the type of supporting information they submitted i.e., that from someone from their wider support network as opposed to that from a professional. Furthermore, interview data showed that applicants felt strongly that equal consideration should not be given to different types of supporting information because individuals' wider support network such as family and friends have a "vested interest" in the outcome. However, there were mixed views on this, where others thought that the concept of equal consideration supports fair decision-making.

Furthermore, survey data indicates no differences in success rates between those who supplied a diagnosis and those who supplied supporting information from another person who knows them/their child. Specifically, 93% of survey respondents who reported only supplying supporting information from another person who knows them/ their child, were successful in obtaining an award, and 89% who only supplied supporting information which contained their diagnosis reported they were successful.

Individuals feel less stress and/or anxiety about the supporting information process

As noted earlier, overall, satisfaction with the supporting information process was very high amongst successful applicants interviewed for this research. Satisfaction with the process was highest among those who were able to submit supporting information at the start of their application, or after a phone call with a Case Manager to clarify what to upload. Those who had more contact with Social Security Scotland, for example, because they wanted them to obtain supporting information for them, felt things could have happened more quickly or efficiently.

The main source of applicant dissatisfaction in the qualitative research was the length of time taken for Social Security Scotland to obtain supporting information on their behalf. This caused applicant dissatisfaction and was also the biggest source of frustration for staff.

Survey data revealed that clarity of the supporting information process was high amongst those who submitted supporting information with their application (see page 25). However, of those who did not supply supporting information with their application, 14% said this was because they found the supporting information process too stressful and 9% said they found the process too difficult. This suggests that some applicants may find this process more difficult than others. This is explored more in the section starting on page 40.

Other outcomes requiring prioritisation: Individuals are empowered to provide their own supporting information

Evidence points to the benefits of individuals providing supporting information themselves, where possible. Indeed, one of the barriers (see also Figure 7), highlights a lack of awareness of this.

Furthermore, the previous section highlights that the main source of individual dissatisfaction and Social Security Scotland staff frustration is the length of time taken for Social Security Scotland staff to obtain supporting information on an individual's behalf and, consequently, for a decision to be made. One of the main causes for this is case managers taking on the task of collecting supporting information on individuals' behalf. Individuals supplying supporting information themselves will therefore speed up the processing of their application, and reduce staff frustration and individual dissatisfaction.

This section will explore key differences between those who supplied supporting information and those who did not, highlighting further the overall importance and benefits to supplying it.

Figure 2 shows the proportions of CDP and ADP survey respondents who reported supplying supporting information with their application, who did not know/couldn't remember if they had supplied it, and who did not supply it with their application. Though the majority of respondents did report that they had supplied supporting information with their application, just over one in ten (13%) of the overall sample responded that they couldn't remember or didn't know. This potentially suggests some misunderstanding around what supporting information is.

Figure 2 Proportions of CDP and ADP applicants who supplied/did not supply/ couldn't remember if they supplied supporting information with their application.

Source: Client Survey Data

Figure 3 shows that there were large differences between those who obtained an award and those who did not, depending on whether they submitted supporting information with their application. Specifically, only 11% and 5% of ADP and CDP applicants respectively, who supplied supporting information with their application, did not receive an award. However, 31% and 18% of ADP and CDP applicants respectively, who did not supply supporting information, did not receive an award.

Figure 3 Successfulness of ADP and CDP applicants who submitted vs. did not submit supporting information in obtaining an award.

Source: Client Survey Data

These proportions do not take into account those who subsequently provided supporting information, and so the proportion who provided no supporting information and who received an award will likely be lower. This further increases the importance of providing supporting information, where possible and highlights the need to clearly communicate that discretion to make an award in the absence of supporting information is limited to cases where good cause can be established.

Progress towards medium-term anticipated outcomes

The medium-term outcomes of the supporting information policy commitments are:

• High quality applications (i.e., including all relevant detail and supporting information) enable a determination to be made quickly and correctly.
• Individuals trust in the application and review process.
• Individuals feel less stress and/or anxiety about the application and review process.
• Values of dignity, fairness and respect are embedded.
• Decision-making is transparent and fair.
• Individuals experience positive contact with case managers, where relevant.

High-quality applications enable a determination to be made quickly and correctly

As discussed on page 23, levels of understanding about what supporting information was most useful were mixed. Social Security Scotland staff also highlighted a view that applicants were not always sure what supporting information to provide.

I think they just don't know what it means… and you've called them to say… I'm just looking to know what support it is that you need [around supporting information]. "I just didn't know what to send" …and then they are like, right, okay, I can get that, I just wasn't sure what was actually meant by it. I feel as if they don't have a proper understanding of what is actually meant by supporting information and I think this is why we get so many cases that don't have any on it. -CDP Case Manager

As discussed in other sections of this report, the qualitative research highlighted misunderstandings that applicants have around the supporting information process.

Though this evidence speaks to the supporting information aspect of the application specifically, and not the application process as a whole, issues with supporting information will likely impact on the overallease and efficiency of the decision-making process.

In line with these findings, over half of survey respondents (55%) reported receiving a call from Social Security Scotland to ask for more information or to clarify something after submitting their application, impacting on decision-making and processing times. Of those who had been contacted:

• 44% had been contacted to clarify information from their application,
• 38% had been contacted to submit more supporting information,
• 10% had been contacted to ask for authorisation to contact a professional to collect supporting information,
• 6% had been contacted to clarify contact details for a professional to collect supporting information, and
• 2% had been contacted to ask if they need help sourcing supporting information.

These proportions similarly highlight the need for further clarification of guidance provided on the application form.

Individuals trust in the application and review process

As noted earlier, successful applicants interviewed for this research tended to feel that Social Security Scotland trusted them and their supporting information. This was largely because they did not ask for any more information and their overall approach was sympathetic and understanding.

This position of trust individuals felt from Social Security Scotland staff was also contrasted with their experience with their experience of applying for benefits administered by DWP.

I think that is the fundamental difference between the system here and the system in the rest of the UK as I understand it. Up here fundamentally their policy is 'we believe you'. We still need corroboration, but we are not going to set out and disprove, you know, if you say you can walk 20 metres, we're not going to go ha-ha, you walked 21, you know. -Successful ADP applicant

The challenges that staff reported in balancing a position of trust with ensuring that the amount of supporting information an applicant has provided is enough for them to make a decision of entitlement was discussed in more detail in the section starting on page 28. The evaluation did not find evidence regarding how this may have impacted on individuals' trust in the application process. Further, long-term research is needed to establish this.

Trust in the application process can also be measured by whether individuals felt that they would be able to apply for other benefits delivered by Social Security Scotland in the future. Overall, successful applicants tended to say they were now more likely to apply for benefits in the future. An applicant, with experience of DWP, suggested they would only apply if the benefit was being administered by Social Security Scotland:

If it's Social Security Scotland I would apply – whereas previously DLA – I wasn't prepared to put myself through it [again]. -Successful CDP applicant

Applicants can ask Social Security Scotland to obtain supporting information from professionals on their behalf^[2]. This is done by ticking the relevant box and providing contact details for the relevant professional on the application form. Nearly half of client survey respondents (49%) said they did not ask, just over a third (34%) said they did ask and 17% were not sure whether they asked Social Security Scotland staff to collect supporting information on their behalf. Of those that did not ask, less than 1%^[3] said that the reason for not doing so was because they did not trust Social Security Scotland.

Individuals feel less stress and/or anxiety about the application and review process

A positive experience of supplying supporting information and making an application can help individuals feel less worried overall. In the qualitative research, successful applicants reported that they were now more likely to apply for benefits in the future. One reason was they now have more confidence to apply given that they have successfully applied once.This increase in confidence suggests that these applicants feel less stress and/or anxiety about application processes more generally. This response comes from an applicant who had applied for a Blue Badge following their successful CDP application:

I feel so much more confident in applying for things. I feel like Social Security Scotland have got my back. I feel like they agree with me and they support me. You can feel like you're not deserving of these things. -Successful CDP applicant

Another indicator of less anxiety over the application process comes from applicants with previous experience of applying for benefits through DWP. These individuals, and even those who had not applied to the DWP before, reported they had the general expectation that applying for any benefit would be difficult and therefore stressful. However, they were pleasantly surprised when going through the ADP or CDP application process.

However, there was some evidence around applicants' lack of awareness and understanding of supporting information that may have inadvertently led to more stress and/or anxiety about the application process. For example, not knowing what supporting information to provide, and a lack of awareness that Social Security Scotland can gather supporting information on applicants' behalf. This latter point may have been particularly useful for those who had more difficulty providing supporting information.

In addition, unsuccessful clients interviewed for this research were less likely to be positive about the application process, reporting it as difficult and onerous.

Values of dignity, fairness and respect are embedded

Survey findings revealed that 88% felt that they had been treated with respect, 88% felt that they had been treated with dignity, and 85% felt that they had been treated fairly, since receiving a decision on their award. Note that this time period may not have captured individuals' application experiences since many applications had been made prior to September 1 2022.

However, when examining this data by successfulness in obtaining an award, there are clear differences. Successful survey respondents were more likely than unsuccessful survey respondents to report they had been treated with dignity (94% vs. 50%), fairness (94% vs. 30%), and respect (95% vs. 51%).

During interviews with Social Security Scotland staff, they spoke about a number of ways in which they demonstrated the values of dignity, fairness, and respect in their approach. This suggests that they are embedded within the Social Security Scotland approach. These ways included:

• staff describing their role. Staff emphasised their role as supporting those who met the eligibility criteria. They contrasted this with being a "gatekeeper" to an award or an "investigator" of someone's entitlement to receive an award,
• speaking about applicants. Staff referred to applicants in a respectful way that demonstrated they were starting from a position of trust,
• speaking to applicants. During interviews, staff gave examples of how they would approach the topic of needing further supporting information when they reached out to applicants after they had submitted their application. Staff described how they sensitively worded conversations to gauge whether applicants were happy and able to provide supporting information themselves or whether they preferred staff do it for them, and
• describing the role of and value of different types of supporting information, including that from an individual's wider support network. It was clear that this was in line with the policy commitment that supporting information only needs to broadly support an application rather than confirm each detail.

However, staff tended to put more weight on supporting information from a medical professional such as a GP which could lead to them considering different types of supporting information differently.

Decision-making is transparent and fair

In interviews, some applicants said that one of the key purposes of supporting information was to allow Social Security Scotland staff to make a fair decision on their application.

90% of CDP survey respondents [ADP applicant data was not available] either agreed or strongly agreed that they understood the decision made on their application and 88% agreed or strongly agreed that the decision had been explained clearly.

However, as stated in the Section: Supporting information is used to make a fair and transparent decision, when asking unsuccessful applicants only, 62% disagreed or strongly disagreed that it was clear why their application had been unsuccessful. Furthermore, 43% of those who had received a no award decision took some further action about this decision, indicating that they did not agree with the decision, and likely did not think that it was fair.

Individuals experience positive contact with case managers, where relevant

Interview data gathered feedback from applicants who had contact with Social Security Scotland, for example, if case managers made a phone call to them after they submitted their application to ask about supporting information. As also described in the Section: Individuals know how to access supporting information guidance and support, these applicants described case managers as being "really helpful", "understanding", "approachable", "patient", and "compassionate".

Although some applicants felt that the supporting information process could have progressed more quickly and efficiently, they still described staff as helpful on the phone. In addition, whilst unsuccessful applicants interviewed for this research tended to be less positive, some did describe the interaction as being positive or neutral. Many of the client survey questions ask applicants to report on their contact with Social Security Scotland since receiving a decision on their application and therefore is limited in what it can reveal about interactions in relation to the supporting information process specifically.

However, of those who received a call from Social Security Scotland after submitting their application to ask for more information or to clarify something:

• 93% agreed or strongly agreed that the person they spoke to listened to them,
• 91% agreed or strongly agreed that it was clear why Social Security Scotland contacted them,
• 88% agreed or strongly agreed that they felt comfortable sharing their information,
• 85% agreed or strongly agreed that they trusted the person they spoke to, and
• 80% agreed or strongly agreed that it was clear what was going to happen next.

As described in other sections of this report, the positive contact that applicants described they had with Social Security Scotland led some individuals to say they would be more likely to make contact with Social Security Scotland in the future.

Other outcomes requiring prioritisation: Modes of, and barriers to, supplying supporting information

As discussed in the Section: Other outcomes requiring prioritisation: Individuals are empowered to provide their own supporting information, there is a need for clearly communicating to clients and those supporting them during the application process that, while Social Security Scotland can gather supporting information on people's behalf, supplying supporting information with their application, where possible, may speed up the decision-making process. This could mitigate against both staff frustration and applicant dissatisfaction.

This section will explore the differences in how different groups of people supplied supporting information and where they obtained their supporting information from. It will also highlight some of the facilitators and barriers faced in obtaining supporting information.

Survey data allows for the exploration of differences across groups in terms of: i) how they provided supporting information (Figure 4) (ii) the type of document submitted as supporting information; and iii) from where they sourced that supporting information (Figure 5 and Figure 6). Overall, these data do not provide an insight into particular barriers people face. However, they do highlight that supporting information is supplied in different ways, forms, and from a variety of sources, highlighting potentially varying needs across different groups of people.

Figure 4 highlights that those who are older, live in rural areas, on lower income, and have visual impairment difficulties were more likely to supply supporting information by post. Whereas, those who were younger, from a white ethnic background, earn more, and have social or behavioural difficulties were more likely to supply supporting information online.

Figure 4 Differences across groups in submitting supporting information online, in person, or via post.

Source: Client Survey Data

There were differences across groups in being more or less likely to supply different documents as supporting information:

• Those with mental health difficulties were less likely (65%) to submit confirmation of diagnosis than those with all other difficulties (70%-78%).
• Those with social or behavioural difficulties (22%) and with mental health difficulties (25%) were less likely to submit test results than those with any other difficulties (30%-47%).
• Those with visual impairments were more likely (47%) to submit test results than any other groups (22%-36%) except from those with hearing difficulties (42%).
• Those with one area affected are less likely (19%) to submit test results than those with more than one area affected (25%-45%), and less likely (50%) to submit medical or social work reports (56%-63%).

Figure 5 highlights the key differences found in where different groups were more or less likely to obtain their supporting information from. Specifically, those with social or behavioural difficulties, one area affected, live in a lower SIMD area, and who are on a lower income are less likely to supply supporting information from a hospital. Those with social or behavioural difficulties, women, and who are younger were more likely to supply supporting information from a therapist. Those who are from a white ethnic background, men, who are older, and who are on a low income were more likely to supply supporting information from a GP.

Figure 5 Differences across groups in obtaining supporting information from different sources

*Excluding those with mental health difficulties (52%)

**Excluding those in the middle-income group (£15,600 – £36,399; 58%)

Source: Client Survey Data

Other findings:

• Those from minority ethnic groups more likely to obtain supporting information from a hospital (72% vs. 58%), and from a school, college or nursery (24% vs. 10%).
• Women were more likely to obtain supporting information from a school, college or nursery (14% vs 3%).
• Those in SIMD Quintiles 1 or 2, were less to obtain supporting information from a therapist, such as an occupational or physiotherapist (22% vs. 27%-33%).

Figure 6 shows key differences across ADP and CDP survey respondents in where they obtained their supporting information from. Specifically, the figure shows that ADP applicants were more likely to obtain supporting information from a GP or family member. CDP applicants were more likely to obtain it from a hospital, school setting, therapist, or social worker.

Figure 6 Differences between ADP and CDP applicants in obtaining supporting information from different places.

Source: Client Survey Data

From interviews, it was clear that some groups of people found the process of supplying information easier than other groups. See Figure 7 for factors that facilitated and inhibited individuals to supply supporting information as well as factors that stopped them from doing so all together. Specifically, the figure shows that access and skills required to submit supporting information were key facilitators to supplying supporting information. Whereas, a lack of understanding about and access to supporting information were key barriers. So too were having a disability or specific condition that makes the completion of tasks more difficult.

Figure 7 Facilitators and inhibitors to providing supporting information as well as reasons for not providing it at all.

Source: Qualitative Interview Research

Many of the barriers to supplying supporting information come from a lack of understanding or misconceptions about supporting information, suggesting again the need for better communication about the different types of useful supporting information and about the benefits of supplying supporting information immediately with an application.

Third Sector staff and Social Security Scotland local delivery staff also highlighted other groups who were more likely to struggle with providing supporting information and/or understanding what is required:

• people with severe mental health difficulties
• people with addictions
• people with difficulties completing tasks
• the Gypsy/Traveller community and some religious communities
• homeless people
• prison leavers
• people with little or no English or low levels of literacy more broadly
• people who do not access the healthcare

He had such a small [social] circle. He had extreme paranoia and was so anxious, he doesn't like leaving the house at all. Doesn't go and see a GP because he has distrust in them… The only person he's got is his mother but he doesn't tell her the true extent of his mental health problems… He really did have nothing to provide in terms of supporting information. -Local delivery staff member

Progress towards long-term anticipated outcomes

The long-term outcomes of the supporting information policy commitments are:

• More determinations made without the need for a consultation (only applicable to ADP).
• Individuals have no worries about the application or review process.
• Individuals trust in Social Security Scotland.
• No barriers to applying for disability benefits.
• Public services treat people with dignity and respect.
• The right decision is made first time.

As explained in the section starting on page 19, changes to support the implementation of the supporting information policy will play an important role in contributing towards these long-term outcomes. However, it will not play an exclusive role. For example, continuous improvement, other changes, and policies relevant to the delivery of disability benefits will also have an impact. In this section, evidence currently available relating to these long-term outcomes is presented.

More determinations made without the need for a consultation (only applicable to ADP)

Overall, 22% of ADP survey respondents reported that they have had a consultation, 65% said they had not had one, and 13% reported that they didn't know or couldn't remember if they had had one. This highlights that the majority of determinations were made without the need for a consultation.^[4]

In interviews,ADP applicants acknowledged and appreciated the role of supporting information in minimising the need for a consultation. Applicants said that they much preferred this approach in comparison to the DWP one which they felt emphasised the need for a physical assessment.

Well, I thought it was great. I mean the fact that it kind of replaces the idea of going for a physical assessment which, you know, I would have done if you wanted me to, I mean I'm not saying that I wouldn't have passed it, of course I would, but just the lack of hassle the fact that you can just take your time and get together information that you think supports your case and send it off to them and hopefully they agree it supports your case, so I thought it was very good. -Successful ADP applicant

This suggests that applicants agree and support the concept behind supporting information, that is, if supporting information adequately supports the case then there is no need for a consultation.

Individuals have no worries about the application or review process

All applicants interviewed for this research typically expected the application process to be stressful. For some, the application process was experienced as the exact opposite.

Whilst a positive experience of the application process and submitting supporting information can challenge applicants' previous experiences and expectations, it will take time and other factors outside improvements to the supporting information process to reduce the overall worry individuals have about the application process. Improvements to applicants' understanding of supporting information should also help to reduce concern about the application process as a whole.

There is a clear need to improve applicants' understanding of supporting information and some of the policy commitments that could lead to reduced worry over the application process as a whole. However, as benefits are a significant source of financial security for so many, it will be difficult to eradicate all worry related to the application or review process. This report provides insight into the role that supporting information plays in reducing this worry.

Individuals trust in Social Security Scotland

Regarding survey respondents' overall experience following receipt of a decision on their application, 80% agreed or strongly agreed that they could trust Social Security Scotland, 16% neither agreed or disagreed and 5% disagreed or strongly disagreed. However, when looking across successfulness in obtaining an award, the proportions are largely different (see Figure 8). The figure highlights that those who were successful in obtaining an award were much more likely to agree that they trusted Social Security Scotland (87% vs. 34% respectively).

Figure 8 Differences in trusting Social Security Scotland by successfulness in obtaining an award.

Source: Client Survey Data

Successful applicants' willingness to contact Social Security Scotland in the future regarding their benefit or when applying for a benefit suggests a level of trust. This willingness came from the positive contact that applicants felt that they had with Case Managers with regard to supporting information. Specifically, they described staff as being very helpful. Though the same willingness was not felt by unsuccessful applicants.

No barriers to applying for disability benefits

Other sections of this report describe barriers in relation to the supporting information process specifically. This section focuses on data relating to the application process more generally.

The majority of survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the application process was clear (81%), asked only relevant questions (75%), allowed them to fully explain their or their child's needs (76%), and that the eligibility criteria was clear before they applied (72%). Figures were similar when disaggregated by ADP and CDP applicants.

However, regarding the application process more specifically, a lower proportion agreed or strongly agreed that the application process did not take too long (59%). As above, figures were similar for ADP and CDP applicants.

Figure 9 Proportions who agreed or strongly agreed on the ease of the supporting information and application processes.

Source: Client Survey Data

Public services treat people with dignity and respect

Neither interviewed applicants nor survey respondents were asked about how they think public services treated them more broadly. Nonetheless, interview and survey data can show how applicants' experiences of the supporting information and application process can contribute in some way to this broader outcome.

The sections starting on pages 30 and 38 demonstrated that the way Social Security Scotland staff spoke about applicants and how they treated them contributes to public services treating people with dignity and respect. It also highlighted how successful applicants also echoed this sentiment.

Key factors identified here were:

• 88% of survey respondents felt that they had been treated with respect and dignity.
• Staff demonstrated how they spoke sensitively with applicants when contacting them to ask for or clarify something regarding their supporting information.
• Staff demonstrated a clear understanding of supporting information including the different types and their respective roles.
• Applicants describing staff as "really helpful", "understanding", "approachable", "patient", and "compassionate" when they reached out to them.

However, these sections also highlighted that the perception of being treated with dignity, fairness, and respect was linked to whether applicants agreed with the decision made in their application and whether they were successful in obtaining an award. Furthermore, staff bias towards supporting information from medical professionals could result in differences in how they consider supporting information. Key factors identified here were:

• 92% who agreed with their decision said they were treated fairly and respectfully, compared to 44% of those who did not agree with their decision.
• Unsuccessful applicants were more likely to have mixed feelings about whether their supporting information had been considered fairly and feel that staff were unhelpful.
• Staff tend to put more weight towards supporting information from medical professionals such as GPs.

The right decision is made first time

Overall, 85% of survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the decision made on their application. Though this does not necessarily mean that the right decision was made the first time in practice. Indeed, there is likely the need to look across other data sources over the longer term to establish this.

Successful interviewed applicants were more likely to believe that the right decision had been made on their application. They said that the reason for this was because they were offered an award to which they believed they were entitled. However, unsuccessful applicants were less likely to believe that the right decision had been made first time because they also felt that they deserved an award.