Support for part-time study and disabled students: consultation analysis

Strand 1 and 2: Support for disabled students

This chapter presents an overview of the analysis of questions about the support available to disabled students. The questions related to each section are noted in the section headings. All percentages and the analysis below are based on those answering the respective question. A full analysis of each question, including a note of how many respondents answered, can be found in can be found in the Technical Annexe, which is provided separately.

Key points

• There was strong consensus on the need to simplify support for disabled students. Current processes are seen as burdensome, inconsistent, and complex, with application forms and evidence requirements cited as barriers.
• There is widespread agreement that there should be a more streamlined and consistent process, with clearer communication, more accessible information, and a greater understanding of disabled students’ needs among institution staff.
• Many student consultation respondents had adjustments and support packages put in place promptly, but others described or had concerns about delays, lack of awareness of support, administrative hurdles, or incomplete support delivery.
• While a majority of student consultation respondents had a positive experience of Disabled Students’ Allowance (DSA) for Higher Education, respondents to both consultations called for some improvements to the application process.
• Mixed views were expressed on DSA allowance limits. Student consultation respondents slightly favoured separate allowances, and Stakeholders typically preferred a single allowance. Those favouring separate allowances felt this offered more flexibility, while a single allowance was seen as simpler and fairer.
• In general, colleges that responded felt financial support for disabled students in Further Education should continue to be handled by colleges, but student consultation respondents were more likely to favour students managing their financial support. Several felt both options should be available, with students able to choose on a case-by-case basis.
• Consultation respondents highlighted the potential benefit of providing more wellbeing and mental health support, and for better digital and IT provision, including the use of more accessible technology for disabled students.

Support for disabled students

Simplifying support (Student consultation Q15, Stakeholder consultation Q12)

Both sets of consultation questions asked respondents if they think that support for disabled students in Further Education (FE) and Higher Education (HE) needs to be simplified (Figure 8).

Over three fifths (63%) of student consultation respondents who answered felt that support for disabled students should be simplified, while 37% did not. Support for simplification among those answering varied slightly from 62% of HE students, 67% of FE students, 61% of part-time or distance learners and 68% of those with a long-term condition. Most (88%) stakeholder consultation respondents who answered felt that support needs to be simplified. This view was widely held among most types of stakeholder, including 90% of universities and all colleges that answered, but by a smaller proportion (50%) of private education providers that answered.

Comments highlighted the main challenges and barriers disabled students face when trying to access support, as well as suggesting improvements. The challenges covered different parts of the process of getting support, which were often described as complex and burdensome. Issues raised included:

• Application forms were described as long, repetitive, time-consuming and confusing, with too many forms, complex language and significant evidence requirements. This was felt to be particularly difficult for those with conditions like dyslexia. Calls for a simpler, standardised approach were made. This was a key issue for both FE and HE student survey respondents.
• Applying for support can be stressful and overwhelming for students, on top of managing their studies and disability. Concerns were raised that this could discourage students from applying for support or cause them to stop studying.
• A lack of clear support eligibility information can result in confusion.
• Inconsistent administration of support across or within educational providers and relevant agencies (e.g. SAAS for HE), with calls for a more unified approach.
• A need to address long waits for diagnoses, evidence from doctors, funding, and support provision.
• A lack of awareness of the support availability and access for disabled students, leading to them not applying. A central hub for support information was suggested by one Student.
• Recognising the support needs of carers of disabled students, and the increase in support needs of students, including more complex requirements.
• The importance of providing flexible, needs-driven and individualised support, and challenges in accessing support for neurodivergent students.
• The need for accessible communication and supportive staff.
• There were calls for more financial support, such as funding for diagnostic assessments, a review of the loan system for postgraduate students, and overall the need for more funding to support disabled students.
• Discussion during engagement sessions and stakeholder meetings highlighted that some disabled students may be reluctant to disclose their disabilities, for example, due to stigma, which can delay support being provided.

In contrast, several student consultation respondents and a few Stakeholder consultation respondents left positive comments expressing the view that the current system works, that no improvements are needed, and that accessing support is already clear and straightforward.

Suggestions made by individual stakeholder consultation respondents on other support they felt could help included updating Scottish Funding Council (SFC) bursary policy documents, providing online application options, comparing approaches with international systems such as the Australian system, determining student support needs during registration, and continuing to have Disabled Students’ Allowance (DSA) assessors with relevant qualifications.

Understanding support needs and support packages (Student consultation Q16 to Q20)

Student consultation respondents were asked about what support was recommended and provided to them within their disability support packages, and the timeliness and challenges in receiving this support.

Student consultation respondents were given a list of supports that may have been recommended to them (Figure 9). Among those answering, support from student support staff or other university staff was most likely to have been recommended (49%), closely followed by IT hardware and software support (48%). Just over one third (36%) had been recommended adjustments to support classroom-based learning. Those with a long-term condition who answered tended to have been recommended the same supports, but at a higher rate: 62% had been recommended support from student support or other university staff, 56% IT support and 42% adjustments to support learning.

In comments, student consultation respondents most frequently described being recommended adjustments to study and for exams, such as extra assessment time, mentors, personal readers, study tools, scribes, proofreaders and tutoring. Other supports included laptops, technology training, specialised desks and chairs, accessible spaces, and wellbeing support. In contrast, a few students said they received unhelpful recommendations, no support had been provided or were advised to pause or stop their studies until their condition improved.

Seven in ten (71%) student consultation respondents who answered said their college or university had made adjustments available to them, while 29% had not. Three quarters (75%) of those with long-term conditions who answered had adjustments made available, as did 76% of those identifying as FE students and 70% of HE students. In their comments, some student consultation respondents stated that recommended adjustments had not been made because their support package was still being planned, or due to administrative delays, a lack of support being available, or needing doctor’s evidence. Others were unsure why adjustments were not made. While positive comments on institutions providing adjustments were provided, challenges were also noted, such as adjustments not being followed in the classroom and software issues. A few student consultation respondents, particularly those identifying as FE students, said adjustments had only partly been put in place, highlighting funding limitations, support being put in place late, and being informed of tools/equipment that they then had to source themselves, which could be challenging for the student to manage.

When asked how long it had taken for their support package to be put in place (Figure 10), two thirds (66%) of those answering said it had been put in place within two months; 42% within one month, and 24% within one to two months. A further 10% waited up to four months, 10% up to six months, and 14% waited over six months. Having a package in place in a month was common for most respondent groups, but the small number of former students who answered reported having to wait longer, with 32% waiting for more than six months.

When asked why their support package had not been in place within the first month of their course (Figure 11), three in ten of those answering (31%) indicated they were still awaiting their needs assessment, 28% had not known support was available, and 27% had not applied. Comments on reasons for a delay highlighted many of the same process-related issues outlined in the ‘simplifying support’ section above. In addition, a few students made positive comments, including that support was put in place quickly, and a few stated that they were awaiting support to be agreed upon and provided.

Three quarters (75%) of student consultation respondents who answered felt that their support package plan was followed once it was in place, while 25% felt it was not. However, in their follow-up comments, some student consultation respondents left negative comments about adjustments not being provided. Some highlighted technology-related difficulties, such as challenges getting the recommended software or having no or inaccessible IT training. Other negative comments included that support had not been provided despite it being requested, a lack of awareness of the support available among students, and that a lack of staff and poor communication delayed support. One Student commented that waiting times to talk to disability advisors were too long, and another that it can be more challenging for disabled students to advocate for themselves due to their disability. However, some respondents commented positively about feeling respected and fully or mostly supported, with adjustments being put into place.

Institutional support for disabled students (Stakeholder consultation Q13 and Q14)

Stakeholder consultation respondents representing or working for education providers were asked what financial and wider support can be accessed by disabled students studying at their institution. Some stakeholder consultation respondents detailed a range of funds, including discretionary funding, hardship funding, bursary funding, grants, scholarships, and provider-specific funding, such as support funding for students who are not eligible for DSA. Colleges were more likely than universities to mention these other funds.

Education providers highlighted the range of administrative and advisory support they provide, including disability and learning support advisory services, and support with careers, transitions, wellbeing, and childcare. Specific support provided to disabled students to help with their education included accessible course materials, note-takers, and digital support such as assistive technologies. A few stakeholder consultation respondents support students with learning plans and needs assessments, while others emphasised that disabled students could access the same support as all other students. One Stakeholder called for clear national standards to ensure consistency across providers.

Seven in ten (70%) stakeholder consultation respondents who answered felt that disabled students' decision on whether to study full or part-time is affected by the level of financial or wider institutional support available, while 30% did not. Most universities (88%) and 71% of colleges that answered felt this was the case. A few respondents described their perceptions of key considerations disabled students might face when deciding whether to study full-time or part-time. These included the availability and accessibility of financial support, including DSA for HE study, the provision and flexibility of education provider support, and travel costs. A few stakeholder consultation respondents thought institutions could help disabled students make their decision by clearly publicising their support offer, ensuring support that disabled students need can be provided, offering equal support to students across programmes, and providing person-centred support services.

Reasons given for why disabled students decide to study part-time included that it is more manageable alongside their health needs than full-time study, that studying full-time could be too intense without adequate adjustments and support, and that it provides greater flexibility. However, comments noted that disabled students may have limited options for part-time study due to the cost and limited availability of such courses. A lack of support and funding for part-time study was also highlighted by a few stakeholder consultation respondents. Concerns included the different DSA limits for part-time or full-time study, a lack of living cost support for part-time students, and support services such as counselling or academic support not being accessible for part-time students. A few stakeholder consultation respondents were worried students may not enter education at all, drop out during study, delay study until they could study full-time, or need to take breaks from study.

In contrast, other comments noted that disabled students may choose to study full-time to receive more funding and support. However, concerns about full-time study included that students’ health could suffer if they took on too much work, which could lead to them stopping their studies. Points raised at engagement sessions and a stakeholder meeting included that full-time study can impact benefit entitlement, while part-time offers no or minimal support, and the DSA study intensity threshold in Scotland is 50% compared to 25% in Wales and England.

Disabled Students’ Allowance (DSA)

Suggested improvements to DSA (Student consultation Q21, Stakeholder consultation Q15)

Over three fifths (63%) of all student consultation respondents who answered said they would not make any changes that would have improved their experience of receiving DSA, while 37% said they would like to see improvements. Among HE students who answered, 62% said they would not make any changes. Of those with a long-term condition who answered, 57% said they would not make any changes, and 43% indicated that they would like to see improvements.

Each set of consultation questions asked an open question about possible improvements to DSA. Respondents to both sets of consultation questions called for the application process and administration of DSA to be simplified. They requested faster application processes and decisions, suggesting this could be done by streamlining application forms, having more assessors, allowing people to submit one application to cover their full course, completing parts of applications before enrolment, and speeding up funding distribution. Improving the speed of the process was most likely to be mentioned across all types of students responding to the student consultation and by colleges in the stakeholder consultation.

A range of improvements to the application process was suggested, especially by stakeholder consultation respondents. These included having online applications, taking a trauma-informed approach, having more straightforward applications and application guidance, improving inter-organisation and student communication, and the need for transparency and accountability. Making independent advocacy available to students was also suggested in stakeholder meetings. Calls were made for increased consistency across education providers, and changes to eligibility criteria and funding caps to meet current needs.

Further suggestions included:

• Addressing barriers to accessing support, such as providing evidence of diagnoses to be eligible for support or being on a waiting list for a diagnosis and unable to access support.
• Improving specific supports, such as mentoring and providing additional support for people with certain conditions, such as dyslexia and autism.
• Tackling organisational barriers, such as a lack of staff.
• Improving communication.
• Being more flexible and learner-driven; improving students’ awareness of the support available through greater publicity.

Challenges arising from specific support provisions were detailed, including issues with suppliers and a lack of student choice regarding IT and software, challenges with funding limits for equipment, and calls for improved course materials and transport options. Respondents to both sets of consultation questions called for action to reduce student anxiety and stress, such as by streamlining administration and removing student responsibilities for purchasing support. The need for flexible, individualised support was also raised.

It should be noted, however, that a few student consultation respondents commented that no improvements to DSA were needed and that needs were being met. A few stakeholder consultation respondents also noted that the current process, including the online DSA application system, is working well and noted the importance of DSA in supporting disabled students.

Potential changes to DSA allowances (Student consultation Q22, Stakeholder consultation Q20)

Both consultations asked respondents whether it is better for disabled students to have different allowances and limits for equipment, software, and accessories, consumable items and Non-Medical Personal Help (NMPH), or a single DSA allowance limit (Figure 12).

Student consultation respondents who answered recorded a slight preference for having separate allowance limits (45%), while 38% preferred a single allowance, and 17% suggested another approach. A similar pattern was evident across most respondent types; for example, 46% of those identifying as HE students preferred separate allowance limits, 37% preferred a single allowance, and 17% suggested another approach.

Stakeholder consultation respondents who answered preferred a single DSA allowance (59%) compared to separate allowance limits (21%), while 21% selected the ‘other’ option at the closed question (see alternative options below). A single allowance was heavily favoured (83%) by the small number of individuals with experience of providing support to disabled students who answered this question. A single allowance was preferred by 71% of colleges that answered compared to 44% of universities, though a single allowance was still the most preferred option among universities, with 22% preferring separate allowances and 33% selected the ‘other’ option.

For respondents to both sets of consultation questions, reasons given for keeping separate DSA allowances and limits included that the current system:

• Allows for greater flexibility and individualised student support.
• Provides better support for students to learn.
• Ensures fairness by preventing some students from being disadvantaged by a single DSA allowance limit and disproportionate spending in one area.
• Is easier to understand and administer than a single DSA allowance limit, with clear allocation transparency, and allows for a clear audit trail.
• Helps students budget more effectively.
• Is better than a single allowance, which could be more costly and result in some students getting more financial support than needed.

In contrast, respondents who supported a single DSA allowance limit felt this would be preferable because:

• It could be simpler and easier to understand and more efficient.
• It could be fairer, more flexible, and give students greater freedom to use funds to meet their needs.
• Students would not face limits on funding in the areas where they most need support, because funding would be based on a total rather than specific categories.

Alternative suggestions were made, such as a single payment that is supplemented with additional grants or funding for additional needs, or differing allowance limits determined by individual needs assessments. Broader considerations for delivery were raised by stakeholder consultation respondents, such as ensuring that any move to a single DSA allowance does not disadvantage any students, is well communicated, and that DSA allowance rates are regularly reviewed and increased in line with inflation.

Stakeholder consultation respondents’ views on DSA (Stakeholder consultation Q16 to Q19, Q21, Q22)

Need assessment provision for students

Over three quarters (78%) of universities and over four fifths (86%) of colleges that answered the question indicated that they carry out in-house needs assessments for disabled students applying to access DSA in Scotland. Respondents reported that a needs assessment was typically carried out between two and four weeks after a referral (67%). However, 86% of the colleges that answered indicated that a DSA applicant is assessed within 4 weeks, compared to 60% of universities.

A few stakeholder consultation respondents stated that their needs assessments are completed entirely in-house. A small number of other stakeholder consultation respondents commented that needs assessments were mostly completed in-house, except for at peak times or when there is a lack of capacity, or if colleges or universities help students to access externally conducted needs assessments. Those who do not carry out in-house needs assessments described using SAAS authorised external providers.

Hire of Non-Medical Personal Helpers (NMPH) and quality assurance hiring checks

Two thirds (65%) of stakeholder consultation respondents who answered indicated that they check the credentials of NMPHs. This varied by stakeholder type, with 57% of universities that answered and 40% of colleges that answered stating they conduct these checks. Most (90%) stakeholder consultation respondents who answered do not assist their students with their employer obligations if they employ their own NMPH; only one university that answered provides this support.

A range of possible checks was described, along with suggested improvements. Most commonly, some stakeholder consultation respondents explained that they hire or recommend NMPHs from agencies that already have pre-existing checks in place, which include checking the skills, experience, references, qualifications and clearance of NMPHs, in particular Protecting Vulnerable Groups (PVG) scheme membership. Stakeholder consultation respondents noted they have established and trusted agencies that they refer students to, and often stated that they do not recommend that students manage NMPHs themselves.

Stakeholder consultation respondents suggested meeting potential NMPHs to assess their suitability for the role, confirming these checks, and then monitoring NMPHs once they have been hired to ensure students are well supported. A few stakeholder consultation respondents described how their college or university supports students who hire their own NMPH. This included advising them on the hiring process, checks they should undertake, and the type of NMPH to hire. Two stakeholders noted that support is provided by their institution, meaning NMPHs provided by DSA are not required unless the student needs more specialised support. One stakeholder suggested creating a central register or national framework of approved NMPH providers to reduce the administrative burden of checks and ensure that students have vetted support.

Support for ineligible students or when DSA allowance limits are exceeded

Stakeholder consultation respondents representing or working for a college or university that supports DSA students were asked what they do when the cost to support the needs of a disabled student exceeds the relevant DSA allowance limits. They were also asked what they do when the type of support required for a disabled student cannot be met through DSA allowances or when the student is not eligible for DSA. Similar approaches were evident in responses to both questions.

Some stakeholder consultation respondents explained that when costs to support disabled students exceed the relevant DSA allowance limits, their institution contacts SAAS. This includes supporting students to appeal their DSA decisions, requesting exemptions to increase allowances for students and for SAAS to cover overspend. These comments were made particularly in relation to the limits of the NMPH allowance.

Some stakeholder consultation respondents described how universities and colleges will cover any costs exceeding the DSA allowance limits, using a range of funds, such as hardship funds, discretionary funds, and bursaries. Respondents highlighted the pressure this places on the financial planning of institutions. A few stakeholder consultation respondents noted they may need to prioritise support within the funding limitations, or explore what can be provided within the existing institutional resources available for students. A small number of stakeholder consultation respondents described supporting students to find other funding sources to help them access the support they require. This included helping students to find charitable grants, as well as other general third-party assistance.

Some stakeholder consultation respondents described how they ensured disabled students had the support they needed through learning adjustments. This was mentioned by all colleges and was more likely to be mentioned by universities than the remaining respondent types.

Stakeholder consultation respondents described what reasonable adjustments they could make to support students without additional funding. This included changes to teaching and assessments, course material support, physical environment changes, use of existing software, mentoring, use of library services and loan equipment, and timetable changes.

A few respondents raised challenges with DSA and suggested changes to address these, such as greater flexibility in thresholds and funding arrangements, clarity on alternative options for student support, and a consistent approach to providing support across the sector.

Financial support for disabled students in Further Education

Managing financial support (Student consultation Q23, Stakeholder Q23)

Both sets of consultation questions asked respondents if they preferred financial support for disabled students in FE to continue being managed by colleges or if students should manage additional costs (Figure 13).

Almost half (47%) of student consultation respondents who answered thought funding should be paid directly to and managed by the student, 38% felt it should be managed by colleges, and 15% favoured another approach.

One third (33%) of stakeholder consultation respondents answering felt colleges should manage financial support for disabled students, while 39% felt disabled students should manage their support, and 27% made another suggestion.

Almost half (47%) of student consultation respondents who answered thought funding should be paid directly to and managed by the student, 38% felt it should be managed by colleges, and 15% favoured another approach. Having the student manage their financial support was preferred by most respondent types, especially part-time or distance learners with a long-term condition who answered (53%). Conversely, those who were not part-time or distance learners and those with no long-term condition marginally preferred colleges managing support. The small number of parents who answered were strongly in favour of college management (88%).

There was no consensus among stakeholder consultation respondents. One third (33%) of those answering felt colleges should manage financial support for disabled students, while 39% felt disabled students should manage their support, and 27% made another suggestion. Over half (57%) of colleges that answered felt they should continue to deliver all aspects of support.

Reasons for colleges continuing to manage financial support for disabled students were provided by respondents to both sets of consultation questions. In particular, they felt this helps to minimise the administrative burden and stress placed on students. This view was more likely to be expressed by students with a long-term condition compared to those without, and by colleges in the stakeholder consultation. Respondents felt that colleges have the best understanding of the needs of their students and course requirements, that colleges have pre-approved providers of resources, and that it could minimise the misuse of funding. Other reasons included:

• Colleges being able to ensure seamless, integrated support.
• To allow strategic resource allocation, such as assistive technology.
• That it would make it easier to collect data about supports that can be used in reporting, monitoring and audit processes.
• That there is no need for supplier change notifications between college finance staff and external suppliers.
• Reduced complexity if support staff are shared between multiple students.

Conversely, some respondents felt that students should manage their financial support. Reasons for this included that it empowers students by giving them independence, autonomy, choice and flexibility to meet their own needs, as well as reducing stress due to simpler administration and increased efficiency. Other less mentioned points included the view that the financial support belongs to students and that college disability support teams are under-resourced, underfunded and overworked, leading to challenges for students in accessing support. It could also remove institutional barriers, allow funding to follow students throughout their education, and create more parity between higher and FE students.

In terms of other approaches, respondents to both sets of consultation questions proposed a mix of colleges and students managing financial support for disabled students, frequently noting that the decision should be made on a case-by-case basis or for students to choose how their financial support should be managed. One stakeholder called for consideration of learnings from the Care Experienced Student Bursary. Another stakeholder consultation respondent requested that funding should be reviewed in line with the recommendation made in the previous SAAS Disability Related Student Support Review.

Impacts of financial support for disabled students (Student consultation Q24, Stakeholder consultation Q24)

The student consultation questions asked those who had studied an FE course if the financial and other practical support they received from their college helped with their learning needs. Over half (55%) of those who identified as FE students and answered the question felt it did. However, this question was answered by other student consultation respondents, some of whom may have studied an FE course in the past. Among all student consultation respondents who answered, 77% felt the support they received was helpful.

Positive comments were left by student consultation respondents, describing their support as good, vital, helpful, and that it had reduced stress. However, challenges with financial and practical support from colleges were also mentioned. These included: instances where people wanted support but were not eligible; calls for improvements to support, such as having peer support and lecturers following learning plans; and the quality of communication with colleges, which lacked transparency and depended on which staff were involved. A few student consultation respondents called for learner-led choices, staff training, improved application processes, and clarity on eligibility and what support is available. Comments made by individual respondents included a need for increased staff understanding of hidden disabilities, the timeliness of support resources being provided to students, and the need for increased financial support. Negative comments were made, such as support not being provided or being unhelpful. Others expressed a desire for more support, such as childcare funding.

Respondents described study and exam adjustments that had been made, such as having tutors, note takers, interpreters, extra exam time, and ensuring there are fair assessments. These adjustments were far more likely to be mentioned by colleges that commented than by universities that commented. Further support provided included IT and assistive technology, transport, specialist equipment, course materials, such as printing, building accessibility, guides, childcare support, mental health support, mentoring, staff training to increase awareness of disabilities and improve staff skillset for disabled student support, and funding for support staff and assessment costs.

Other funding streams for disabled student support were mentioned, including discretionary funds and the Disabled Students Premium. Comments made by individual respondents each mentioned the Independent Living Transition Fund, Additional Support Needs for Learning Allowance, and university funding for students who are ineligible for DSA. Inconsistent use of funding between institutions and the need for clearer guidance were also noted.

Other improvements

Other non-monetary improvements (Student consultation Q25, Stakeholder consultation Q25)

Respondents to both sets of consultation questions suggested a range of other improvements to support disabled students. Student consultation respondents called for adjustments to study and exams, such as more flexible timetables, improved marking processes that do not disadvantage disabled students, students being given the choice of support providers, and improved access to specific courses. Suggestions were made for more peer support and mentoring, mental health and wellbeing support, and improved campus and building accessibility.

Further suggestions included additional transport support, social and extracurricular activities for disabled students, and support for those with parental or caring responsibilities. Requests were made for more accessible technology, including assistive technology and sufficient IT infrastructure, such as Wi-Fi and hardware equipment.

Student consultation respondents also called for process and staff-related improvements, including:

• Training for staff and students at education institutions, in particular teaching staff, as well as other administrative and academic staff, to increase their awareness of the variety of disabilities and support needs, and to take a trauma-informed approach. Discussion at an engagement session and a stakeholder meeting highlighted the need for increased awareness of hidden disabilities.
• Improving support for funding applications, with a simplified application form and timely support.
• Ensuring advisory support for students is consistent, individualised, accessible, and with good student communication.
• Accessible and inclusive teaching methods.
• Acceptance and accommodation of students’ adjustments within classrooms.

Greater Scottish Government investment in support for disabled students was called for by a few stakeholder consultation respondents, along with other specific recommendations for the Scottish Government. This included comments on creating a role to support disabled students that is similar to the Commissioner for Fair Access who leads a system-wide effort to deliver fair access to higher education in Scotland, establishing a disability in FE and HE advisory group, quality assurance of support across providers, and the greater use of frameworks and tools to enhance student support.

Calls for consistency across institutions in the support provided to disabled students were made by three universities and one third sector organisation, along with suggestions for sectoral guidance to support this. Greater connections with secondary schools to aid in transition support to HE and FE were also recommended, including in stakeholder meetings. This included calls for a simplified transition process and to consolidate the Independent Living Fund (ILF) Scotland with DSA. A few stakeholder consultation respondents raised the possibility of integrated support services within institutions, such as disability services working with careers and wellbeing services, as well as improving the ease of access to support for students. A small number of stakeholder consultation respondents, stakeholder meeting discussions and an engagement session highlighted that previous recommendation from the SAAS Disability Related Student Support Review (2021) had not been implemented, and suggested they should be. Calls for a review of the DSA system were also made in an engagement session and a stakeholder meeting.

Other suggestions for non-monetary improvements for disabled students were each detailed by individual stakeholder consultation respondents. These included having more proactive student support, more postgraduate student funding support and flexibility (which was also raised in an engagement event), creating inclusive institutional cultures, ensuring neurodivergent students have access to support, and more clarity on fee-waver limits. A stakeholder meeting raised issues with long waiting times for support, stigma, and a lack of understanding that can be faced by neurodivergent students. At an engagement session, it was emphasised that advocacy to access support can rely on the support networks of young people. At a stakeholder meeting, it was noted that some international students had reported they experienced challenges in accessing support (although it is unclear which support this referred to).