Social Security Experience Panels: short-term assistance - report

Accessing Short-term assistance

Deciding to challenge a decision

Participants were asked what sort of things they would think about when deciding whether to apply for a redetermination or appeal. Throughout the focus groups participants emphasised how stressful the redeterminations and appeals process can be, and the impact that can have on mental health. They said they may therefore choose not to put themselves through this.

“It’s too stressful”.

“People’s health condition can put them off applying- it can take a toll on your health to have to go through the appeal process”.

Some participants recalled being put off from applying for a redetermination or appeal due to fear that they would lose more of their benefit rather than gaining a higher award.

“Fear that you might lose what you already have, and how long it takes”

“People are scared to lose that if they challenge, they’ll lose it all”.

It was also suggested that some people don’t challenge a decision they disagree with because they don’t think it’s “worth their while” to do so.

The majority of participants said that they would be more likely to challenge a decision if Short-term assistance was available. This was because they felt it provided the support or incentive to go through the redetermination and appeals process, and because the existence of the payment would reduce the financial stress associated with this period.

“There’s nothing to lose, there’s an incentive there to help people fight and challenge a decision”.

“More likely. It was because of fear people aren’t applying because they will lose what they have. Having this means they’ll have the same amount of money”.

“More likely to challenge. Just mortified because so embarrased to ask for help, have to go to a food bank. I would be despairing”.

However, a few participants felt that challenging a decision did not depend on Short-term assistance, but rather on the way clients are treated by staff and the organisation as a whole. In particular, they may be more likely to challenge a decision if they felt they had been treated unfairly, or that the severity of their condition was underestimated in the decision.

“It depends on overall initial interaction. My experience with DWP is better than most but I still felt dragged down. Pivotal to me is to make sure the interface from the start is that you don’t feel as if you are begging people to open their personal piggy bank”.

“I don’t know anyone who likes to be told that something has been done to them that they have no control. Or that they are told they are not as ill as they have stated. It is that which makes them disagree”.

Participants also felt that to support people to challenge a decision, the organisation would need to take into account their wider needs.

“Lack of consideration that this may be a symptom of a life issue. I had difficulties dealing with a male due to domestic violence. I requested a female and it’s all about considering all these needs”.

Requesting Short-term assistance

During the focus groups, participants were given three options for notifying Social Security Scotland that they would like to receive Short-term assistance. These were:

• a tick box on the redetermination form,
• a separate one page form to complete, or
• a tear off slip on the letter confirming your redetermination application.

Of these options, the most popular response was the tick box on the redetermination form.

“Tick box is easiest”.

“more paper is not necessary, a tick box is fine”

Some participants also felt that clients should be given the opportunity to apply by phone, online or by email.

“A phone number may be best for people who don’t like stuff in writing etc”.

“Another option, those who wanted to could email in, and ask the person to email back so they know the application has been received”.

However, across the focus groups, participants strongly argued that Short-term assistance should be automatically provided to all clients asking for a redetermination or appeal. This would mean that everyone entitled to it would get it without having to ask for it on a form.

“No-one should be penalised while there’s a redetermination”.

Participants highlighted a number of benefits of an automated system.

The potential gap in payments between a benefit being stopped and Short-term assistance being applied was a particular concern. People felt that an automated system should give people a grace period during which they can challenge a decision. If they decide not to challenge, then the payment would stop. Similarly, participants felt that when challenging a decision, receiving Short-term assistance should be automatic, unless the recipient gets in touch to opt out.

“Would prefer automatic opt in. The payment would then stop if you get in touch to opt out. This would be fairer than applying and waiting for it to be processed whilst income already stopped”.

“I would say ‘we are stopping your benefits, you have 14 days to ask for redetermination, after 14 days all your income will stop unless you tell us you want a redetermination’.”

Participants also highlighted a number of barriers to applying for Short-term assistance. They felt that most people would want to receive it, but may not know it’s available, may not understand how it applies to them, or might be too embarrassed or proud to apply.

Participants also highlighted that with any form, it is always possible to lose the relevant piece of paper, or not tick the right box and that if that happened the consequence for someone could be serious.

“Elderly people put off applying due to their pride”.

“Only bad thing is it isn’t automatic, I think it should be. Most people – 99% would want it. Takes away the problem of letting people know about it. The right to choose to stop it rather than applying would be better”.

“It would be easier if we knew it was automatic. If you didn’t want the money, you can have the choice of not receiving. It is important for a lot of people who can’t communicate or be aware of”.

Participants also highlighted that an automated system would reduce the burden of responsibility on carers.

“Well my brother is on benefits and I know he wouldn’t apply for it as he doesn’t understand it. I have to explain things in basic terms, it should be automatic”.

It was also suggested that an automatic opt-in system would be more compassionate than one which required people to apply. Participants felt that it would be less stressful if you don’t need to do anything extra.

“It takes pressure off the individual, stressful when letter comes through the door. If they know this straight up, it relieves that stress. It is a terrible time for people when letter comes through the door”.

“Signing up to Short-term assistance could be a major depression for some”.