Disability benefits - supporting information: qualitative research

3. Applicant perceptions of how supporting information is used

This chapter looks at applicants' views on whether their supporting information was considered fairly by Social Security Scotland, whether they felt trusted by Social Security Scotland, and the impact of their experiences on their likelihood to contact Social Security Scotland and apply for other benefits in the future. It also discusses comparisons with the DWP made by those with experience of both systems.

Whether applicants feel their supporting information has been considered fairly

The dominant view among successful applicants was that Social Security Scotland had considered their supporting information fairly. (Note that we did not define 'fairly' when asking applicants about this.) One of the main reasons given was that they had been successful in their application and, since they felt they deserved the award, this indicated that their supporting information had been considered in a fair manner. Others mentioned the detailed reasons for the decision provided in the award letter and saw this as evidence that their application, including their supporting information, had been thoroughly looked at.

"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)

Unsuccessful applicants had more mixed views on whether their supporting information had been considered fairly. One applicant with long Covid had submitted supporting information from her mother, having been unable to get a GP appointment, and felt it had 'possibly not' been considered fairly. Researchers were unable to confirm the actual reasons for her application being unsuccessful.

Whether applicants feel trusted by Social Security Scotland

Successful applicants tended to feel that Social Security Scotland trusted them and the supporting information they provided, in line with the outcome of a trust-based approach being applied to the collection and use of supporting information. Reasons given for this included the fact that Social Security Scotland did not question any aspects of the application and did not ask for any more information. A couple of applicants indicated that staff were sympathetic and understanding. For example, one successful applicant explained: "the Case Manager said 'you've had a hard time'". This applicant clarified that they saw this as evidence of trust.

The feeling of being trusted was contrasted favourably with the DWP experience:

"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)

"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)

However, another successful applicant felt that staff needed to be objective and that they 'have to be sceptical'. This applicant did not have experience of the DWP system.

Unsuccessful applicants were more likely to indicate that they did not know if they or their supporting information had been trusted.

Impact of the experience on likelihood to contact Social Security Scotland

As discussed in Chapter 2 Understanding what to provide, applicants tended to be extremely positive about their interactions with Social Security Scotland staff. They were described as 'friendly', 'approachable', 'helpful', and 'reassuring'. This led some applicants to say they would be more likely to contact Social Security Scotland in future. Others indicated that they were already happy to make contact and their experience of applying for disability benefits had made no difference.

One of the unsuccessful applicants said he was now less likely to contact Social Security Scotland as he said they: "were the same as DWP". The negative outcome of their application made no difference to the other unsuccessful applicants' likelihood of making contact.

Impact of the experience on likelihood to apply for benefits in the future

This section is based on applicants' overall experience rather than the supporting information process specifically.

Overall, successful applicants tended to say they were now more likely to apply for benefits in the future. A range of reasons were provided, including:

• They now have more awareness that they might be entitled to benefits and were therefore more likely to look into it.
• The process is easier than they expected.
• Having successfully applied once, they now have more confidence.
• They now know they can get help to apply.

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. We just got through a Blue Badge today – I just think he [son] needs it."

(Successful CDP applicant)

One 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)

Unsuccessful applicants tended to focus on whether they would reapply for the particular benefit they had just been turned down for. They were less positive, and more likely to see the process as difficult and onerous, than were successful applicants.

"The process was difficult – it would put me off [reapplying]. At some point I will try again but it feels like a big task."

(Unsuccessful ADP applicant)

Comparisons with the DWP processes

The comparisons discussed in this section are based on the experiences of the 12 applicants who had previously applied for disability benefits administered by DWP. Overall, these applicants were overwhelmingly more positive about their experience with Social Security Scotland than with DWP. Aspects of the supporting information process that were considered better with Social Security Scotland were:

• It was clearer what supporting information was required (although there were still some misunderstandings about this, see Understanding what to provide).
• That they looked at a broader range of information and had more of an understanding of mental health issues than DWP. There was a perception that DWP were geared up for physical assessment and not interested in supporting information. This was seen as particularly problematic for people with long term mental health conditions.
• CDP applicants believed that the Social Security Scotland Case Managers were more interested in their children than DWP staff had been, and that they made an effort to understand their conditions. In one case, involving a Practitioner (see glossary in Appendix 1) to explain the very rare condition was seen as evidence of this.
• Being able to upload photos of documents to the Social Security Scotland system. This was felt to be easier than posting copies of them – which was what required at the time these people had applied to DWP.

The following applicant appreciated that supporting information was used to avoid the need for a physical consultation:

"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 a very good"

(Successful ADP applicant)

Aside from the supporting information element specifically, the Social Security Scotland application process as a whole was also seen in a much more positive light than the DWP process. The following two applicants expressed similar sentiments about the perceived attitude of DWP compared with Social Security Scotland:

"Nothing is easier with DWP, you get the feeling they don't want you to apply, don't want you to get it. It's the complete opposite with Social Security Scotland, it's like we have this [benefit], and we will help you to get it."

(Successful ADP applicant)

"I felt that they [DWP] took my supporting information and turned it against me – I found it really traumatic. When I read the decision letter, the reason they gave, I found it so baffling. They hadn't listened to me. I'd had an hour long [phone] interview – having to explain how these things affect my life – getting quite upset on the call… [compared with ADP] …Amazing. I literally can't believe how much better it is. The fact that I didn't have to do the hour-long traumatic phone call – the answers I gave [on the application form] were almost identical."

(Successful ADP applicant)

Many of those who had not had personal experience of DWP had negative perceptions of it. These were based on word of mouth from family and friends who had applied, from media reports, or from having looked at the DWP application form and been put off. A couple of applicants mentioned that they might have applied/reapplied to DWP but held off when they heard that the benefits were going to be devolved as they assumed, or at least hoped, it would be a better experience. One applicant was glad she had waited and commented:

"…they weren't horrible in any way at all."

(Successful CDP applicant)