Independent Review of Adult Disability Payment (ADP): Analysis of responses to a public consultation and call for evidence

1. Introduction

Background

Adult Disability Payment (Adult Disability Payment) launched on 29 August 2022 and is one of fifteen payments that Social Security Scotland (Social Security Scotland) delivers. Adult Disability Payment has replaced Personal Independence Payment (Personal Independence Payment) for disabled people of working age in Scotland.

An Independent Review of Adult Disability Payment, chaired by Edel Harris OBE, began in February 2024. The review will consider people’s experiences of the first year of delivery of Adult Disability Payment, as well as the eligibility criteria. An advisory group of 10 members has been convened to provide guidance, expertise, and scrutiny to the Chair to ensure the effectiveness, fairness, and integrity of the review. The Advisory Group includes disabled people and people with experience of disability, and people who work for organisations that support disabled people.

The Scottish Government has asked the Independent Review to look at:

• The activities and descriptors that determine entitlement to Adult Disability Payment, including how these apply to disabled people with fluctuating conditions.
• People’s experiences of applying for, receiving or challenging a decision about Adult Disability Payment or undergoing a review, including unsuccessful applicants.
• Consultations process and Adult Disability Payment-specific guidance for practitioners and decision-making guidance to ensure a rights-based model of social security is being applied.
• Considering initial priorities capable of early action that do not require changes to the application, decision-making or service delivery, where those changes offer value, are deliverable and useful regardless of any longer-term changes.

This consultation will be used to assist the Chair of the Independent Review make recommendations about Adult Disability Payment. The review will also consider the recent analysis of responses to the consultation on the eligibility criteria for the mobility component of Adult Disability Payment, the work with Social Security Experience Panel Members on the eligibility criteria for the mobility part, and the evaluation of supporting information which was undertaken by the Scottish Government as part of its disability benefits evaluation strategy.

An interim report identifying any initial priorities, which do not involve substantive changes to service design and are capable of early action, is planned for November 2024. A final report will be provided from the Independent Review to the Scottish Government by July 2025.

Overview of engagement activity

The Independent Review aimed to take an inclusive and transparent approach to engaging with disabled people and stakeholders. This report combines responses and evidence gathered across three strands of engagement which ran from 28 June to 30 August 2024; a public consultation, a call for evidence and stakeholder engagement events. Details of each of these elements are provided below.

Public consultation

The public consultation was mainly meant for people with lived and living experience of accessing – or trying to access – Adult Disability Payment. The consultation contained 46 open and 40 closed questions which sought respondents’ views on 12 aspects of Adult Disability Payment. Given the availability of existing evidence noted above, the consultation (and call for evidence) did not cover the mobility component of Adult Disability Payment or the gathering of supporting information to support an application. A full list of consultation questions is provided in Appendix A.

In total, 84 consultation responses were received from 80 individuals and four organisations. These individuals typically left shorter responses to questions relevant to their own personal experiences, suggesting how it could have been improved.

Call for Evidence

The call for evidence was primarily intended for organisations, and included 21 open questions which aimed to gather data and evidence to inform the Review’s recommendations. It provided an opportunity for all interested parties to provide specific feedback in relation to the areas identified in the Review’s Terms of Reference as being a focus for the Review. The call for evidence did not ask questions about the eligibility criteria or fluctuating conditions for Adult Disability Payment, but these were included in the consultation and events. A full list of the call for evidence questions is provided in Appendix B.

A total of 36 responses were received from 29 organisations and seven individuals. These respondents typically left longer, detailed responses, outlining their perspectives on the first year of Adult Disability Payment. The call for evidence paper noted that evidence cited in responses need not be limited to evidence published academically. Given this, responses highlighted a range of evidence, including ongoing research studies and internal organisation data about different stages of the Adult Disability Payment application and decision-making process. In many cases, organisations had collected feedback from their own stakeholders. As well as a few instances of survey data, some organisations used quotes and case studies to evidence the points raised in their responses and to illustrate the lived experience of the individuals they support.

Stakeholder engagement events

The Independent Review organised nine engagement events with stakeholders to provide a more accessible opportunity for people to contribute. Following a short introduction by the Independent Review’s Secretariat, these events were independently facilitated by The Lines Between. The events were structured around key stages of applying for Adult Disability Payment: awareness of Adult Disability Payment and pre-application support; the eligibility criteria; asking about daily living needs; and getting a decision. While questions were asked about these areas, the events were open forum to allow participants to expand on their areas of interest.

In total 47 people attended eight in-person events across Scotland and one online event. This comprised 19 individuals and 28 organisation representatives. A summary of the location and number of attendees at each event is provided in Appendix C.

Consultation and Call for Evidence respondent profile

In total, 120 responses were received from 117 unique respondents^[3]. Almost all were submitted via the online consultation platform, Citizen Space. Those received in an alternative format, for example, an email or PDF document, were reviewed separately by the research team. The table below shows the number of each type of respondent.

Analysis approach

The Lines Between was commissioned to provide a robust, independent analysis of the responses to the consultation and the call for evidence, and of the notes from consultation events. The main purpose of this analysis is to understand the full range of views expressed and, where possible, using closed questions to quantify how many respondents hold particular views. This report provides a thematic analysis of responses based on the analysis approach outlined below.

Reflecting the number and knowledge of respondents, it is not practical to detail every response in this report; some, especially organisations, shared lengthy submissions reflecting their subject matter expertise. Full responses, where permission for publication was granted, can be found on the Scottish Government’s consultation website.

Quantitative analysis

The consultation included 40 closed questions, though not all respondents answered every question. This report presents the results of the closed questions based on those who answered each question. Each results table shows the:

• Number of respondents in the total sample selecting each response (blue row).
• Percentage of the total sample selecting each response (grey row).
• Percentage response among those who answered each question^[4] (white row). Please note that the row percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.

Qualitative analysis

Qualitative analysis identifies the key themes across responses to each question. The research team developed a draft coding framework based on a review of the consultation questions and call for evidence and a sample of responses. During the coding process, new codes were created if additional themes emerged.

In a small number of instances where a response received via email or in a PDF document contained information that did not align with specific questions, analysts exercised judgment about the most relevant place to include this material for analysis purposes.

The analysis also included notes collected by The Lines Between at the nine engagement events. These discussions aligned closely with the themes arising in the formal responses received via Citizen Space and have been weaved into the analysis presented in this report. Additional or unique perspectives raised in events have been highlighted.

Where appropriate, quotes from a range of the consultation and call for evidence responses are included to illustrate key points and provide useful examples, insights and contextual information.

When reviewing the analysis in this report, we would ask the reader to consider:

• Public consultation of this kind means anyone can express their views; individuals and organisations interested in the topic are more likely to respond than those without a direct or known interest. This self-selection means the views of respondents do not necessarily represent the views of the entire population.
• Given the composition of each sample, themes evident in the consultation responses were mostly raised by individuals, and those in the call for evidence raised by organisations. However, where differences between the views of individuals and organisations were evident in qualitative responses, these have been noted.
• While qualitative questions allow respondents to elaborate on their views, not all respondents choose to answer, with those who do providing varying levels of detail. The qualitative analysis can therefore only be based on the information provided by those who commented. In particular, because Adult Disability Payment was only launched two years ago, only a small proportion of respondents have experienced parts of the process such as review and change in circumstances, meaning the numbers answering these questions are smaller.
• Many call for evidence responses did not provide the types of evidence sought by the Independent Review; indeed, some highlighted the lack of available evidence. Instead, responses frequently took the form of more traditional consultation responses where organisations used their own internal data and information from stakeholders to illustrate their views. Where possible, information provided about the nature of data or evidence used to inform their submission has been noted. Similarly, a few individuals who responded to the call for evidence were confused by the repeated requests for evidence. Their responses reflect their own experiences and have been analysed alongside other call for evidence responses.
• Some points, such as the need for more communication or shorter timescales, were raised repeatedly across the questions. Where these are related to specific stages of the process, the points are presented under the relevant questions. Where themes or issues did not align with specific questions, analysts exercised judgement about the most relevant place to include each theme to avoid repetition. Similarly, some points for discussion in the engagement events did not have corresponding consultation or call for evidence questions and have therefore been noted in the most suitable chapters.
• While the focus of the engagement was on understanding experiences of Adult Disability Payment, some respondents provided evidence from stakeholders that explicitly described experiences of Personal Independence Payment, or in some cases it was unclear if a respondent was referring to Personal Independence Payment or Adult Disability Payment. Instances where previous experiences provide a useful comparison and provide insight into how Adult Disability Payment is different have been included as appropriate.

Weight of opinion

This report presents the themes identified in responses to each question from most to least commonly mentioned, outlined using the sub-headings under each question. All themes, including views shared by small numbers of respondents, are covered; a view expressed by a very small number of respondents is not given less weight than more general comments shared by a majority.

Similarly, all responses have an equal weighting. We recognise this means a response from an individual has the same weight as the response from an organisation which may represent many members, but this approach ensures all views are presented.

Qualitative analysis of open-ended questions does not permit the quantification of results. However, to assist the reader in interpreting the findings, a framework is used to convey the most to least commonly identified themes in responses to each question:

• The most/second most common/prevalent theme; most frequently identified.
• Several respondents; more than 10 respondents, a recurring theme.
• Some respondents; between five and nine respondents, another theme.
• A few / a small number; fewer than five respondents, a less commonly mentioned theme.
• Two/one respondents; a singular comment or a view identified in only one or two responses.

When referring to notes from the engagement events, we have referred to points raised in one event, a few events i.e. two or three events, and in multiple events i.e. more than four.

Report structure

This report is structured around the stages of the Adult Disability Payment application and decision-making process. For each stage, the analysis of responses to the consultation questions is presented and then followed by relevant responses from the call for evidence. Analysis of the discussion at consultation events has been included at the most appropriate points throughout. In one instance where discussion did not align directly to consultation or call for evidence questions, it has been presented separately in Chapter 5.

The report structure is as follows:

• Chapters 2 to 4 presents an analysis of responses about the process leading up to the Adult Disability Payment application. This includes awareness of the benefit, the eligibility check and the pre-application support.
• Chapters 5 to 7 examine views on the rules and criteria that govern the Adult Disability Payment decision-making process.
• Chapters 8 to 11 present the analysis of comments about the process of receiving a decision, communication around the decision and processing times.
• Chapters 12 and 13 consider other experiences with Adult Disability Payment, such as the process of reporting a change in circumstances.
• Chapter 13 concludes the report.
• There are three appendices for readers to refer to the consultation questions (Appendix A), the questions posed in the call for evidence (Appendix B), and the overview of the consultation events (Appendix C).