Devolved disability benefits: decision making – commissioned research report - annex A

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

The Scotland Act 2016 gives the Scottish Government responsibility for specific benefits, including some related to disability. In delivering devolved benefits, the Scottish Government is committed to evaluating implementation and impact. This research relates to one strand of that evaluation, focusing on how the delivery of devolved disability benefits affects the client experience around decision-making. ‘Clients’ are individuals who have recently applied for, or experienced a consultation or review in relation to, one of these benefits. The benefits in scope are Adult Disability Payment (ADP), Child Disability Payment (CDP), and Pension Age Disability Payment (PADP).

This research examines clients’ and Social Security Scotland staff’s understanding of the policy principles guiding decisions, including consultations, review periods, and reviews; and their experiences of these principles being applied in practice (see Logic Model in Annex). This was explored within a series of decision-making themes. Each theme was explored with staff in the form of policy principles or elements of the guidance they use when making decisions, whereas each theme was explored with clients in the form of the intended outcomes that it was hoped clients would experience.

The themes, and principles and outcomes that sit within them, are in the Annex.

1.2 Research questions

The research explored specific research questions. For clients, it explored:

• Are clients aware of and do they understand the principles underpinning decision-making? Are relevant clients aware of and understand the principles underpinning consultations? What do they think of them?
• What are clients’ experiences of these principles? Do their experiences align with the principles? What are the impacts on clients, and how do these compare with the intended outcomes for clients? What is working well and what might need to be done differently?

For Social Security Scotland staff, the research explored:

• Are Case Managers and other staff aware of, do they understand and are they confident in using the policy principles underpinning decision-making and, where relevant, consultations? Do they feel sufficiently equipped to apply them (e.g. training, resources)?
• Are Case Managers and other staff implementing the policy principles as intended? What is working well and what might need to be done differently?

1.3 Research methodology

In order to best address the aims of the research and explore the extent to which the outcomes from the logic model had been achieved, qualitative research was conducted with Social Security Scotland clients and staff from February to April 2025. As such, the findings explored in this report are timeframe specific.

A total of 74 client participants across ADP, CDP, and PADP applications, reviews and consultations, took part in 16 focus groups and seven individual interviews. This included a mix of clients with successful and unsuccessful outcomes in their applications and clients with an increase, no change, or decrease in their award at reviews. Scottish Government invited eligible clients to take part using Social Security Scotland’s Client Panels as well as Client Survey recipients, and interested clients contacted IFF directly.

In both focus groups and interviews with clients, participants’ spontaneous awareness and understanding of the policy principles and their anticipated outcomes were explored first; before presenting them with a typical journey diagram and exploring their own recent experience of the decision-making process as a client. Then a stimulus describing the outcomes that would be associated with the decision-making process, based on the logic model, was presented to explore their experiences further. The journey diagrams were designed to help participants think about the parts of their journey that fed into the decision-making process, while the ‘outcomes’ stimulus materials were designed to communicate the outcomes in an accessible manner, in order to explore the extent to which their own decision-making experiences aligned with them.

A total of 46 staff participants took part in the research, which took the form of in-depth interviews, group discussions, and case observations.

The discussions element consisted of 12 in-depth interviews with Case Managers, and eight group discussions with Quality Support Staff, Decision Support Staff, Decision Team Managers, and Health and Social Care Practitioners (called ‘Practitioners’ for short).

The observations consisted of Case Managers ‘thinking aloud’ their decision-making process with a researcher, while working through previous decisions they had made, including decisions on applications, reviews and consultations. Case Managers were encouraged to talk through their decision-making from when they receive a case to the final decision being made and how this is communicated to the client using the decision letter. Researchers spoke as little as possible, only to encourage the case managers to ‘think aloud’ in order to make their thought process clear. At the end of the observation, there were some questions asked of the case manager to allow them to reflect on their decision, allowing them to highlight any specific parts of the guidance that they utilised or adhered to in their decision-making. What Case Managers said about the decision-making process was then linked to the principles at the analysis stage.

In each discussion with staff, participants’ spontaneous awareness and understanding of the principles was explored first. They were then presented with a journey stimulus, encouraging them to talk about different parts of the journey and how confident they felt in applying the principles at different stages. They were also presented with stimulus describing each of the principles, to explore their understanding and experiences further. Again, this was to allow them to discuss how their decision-making aligned more or less with the policy principles.

1.4 Caveats / things to note

The reader is asked to bear in mind the following points when considering the findings of the research:

• Though every effort was made to ensure that each of the groups of interest in this evaluation were represented proportionally, there were instances that led to some groups being more largely represented than others, for example:
  • Some participants were categorised in the ‘unsuccessful’ outcome group but it transpired during fieldwork that they had subsequently been successful in a later application or review they had submitted / undergone.
  • A small number of focus groups were poorly attended, and we therefore organised one-to-one interviews to ensure we had more numbers for a specific group, but this was not always achieved successfully.
  • It transpired during fieldwork that some participants in the consultation group had not actually gone through a consultation, but rather had had a less formal phone call with Social Security Scotland staff.
• The qualitative research aimed to capture a variety of experiences across clients and staff. However, the findings are not representative of clients and staff. This is because the overall sample was small, and participants were self-selecting, meaning they actively chose to take part, as opposed to being randomly selected. The sample is therefore likely biased to those more willing to take part in research and those more able to deal with administrative tasks.
• Throughout the report we refer to successful and unsuccessful award outcomes. For applications, successful awards refer to when clients received an award and unsuccessful awards refer to when clients did not receive an award. For reviews, successful awards refer to when clients received a no change or an increased award and unsuccessful awards refer to when clients received a decreased award. Where the report refers to successful and unsuccessful outcomes, this includes findings from both application and review clients. Where the report refers to no change, increased and decreased awards, this relates to findings from review clients only.
• Throughout the report, repeated reference is made to supporting information; specifically supporting information from a professional and that from the client’s wider support network. The definitions for these two types of supporting information are as follows:
  • Supporting information from a professional: Social Security Scotland asks all disability benefit applicants to provide one piece of supporting information from a professional if they can. Supporting information from a professional is information that broadly confirms the individual’s conditions, disabilities, or needs. It does not need to include a diagnosis. It can come from a wide range of professionals, including paid carers or physiotherapists.
  • Supporting information from the client’s wider support network: information from people who are likely to know the client best, such as a family member, partner or unpaid carer. It is information that describes the impact the conditions or disability have on the client's day to day life.
• The qualitative research involved staff with various roles, including Case Managers, Decision Team Managers, Quality Support Staff, Decision Support Staff, and Health and Social Care Practitioners. Where findings have been described as staff findings, there were no notable differences of opinion between staff roles. However, notable differences have been flagged where appropriate.
• For individuals, the ‘reviews’ part of the research precluded those who have had their cases transferred from the DWP to Social Security Scotland and therefore included new applicants only. Although the review process has the same policy principles for new applicants as for those who have had their cases transferred, this means that a significant proportion of review clients have been excluded. However, IFF did observe case managers making decisions about review cases that were a first decision by DWP.
• Efforts were made to try to recruit clients who had received a decision within six months of being invited to take part in the research. However, for some client groups the response rates were particularly low so this window was expanded to a year. It should therefore be recognised that it has been a prolonged period since some clients engaged with the decision-making process. Clients were asked by the researchers to read through their decision letter again before they attended a focus group to ensure that they had their experience fresh in their minds during fieldwork, however this cannot be guaranteed.
• In relation to reviews, the term ‘light touch’ is used in this report (and was used in a stimulus shown to clients). This term is used as shorthand for using relevant information (that is already held by Social Security Scotland) and decision-making tools, where possible, to ensure requests for further information, including supporting information, are necessary and proportionate. By necessary and proportionate, we mean where making a robust determination would not be possible without it.
• The term ‘balance of probabilities' is also used in this report. All decisions made by Social Security Scotland are based on the balance of probabilities. It is a way to describe the level of certainty about any decision made, by requiring decision-makers to determine whether information is more likely than not to be a fact.
• The report contains references to complex and fluctuating health conditions. Complex health conditions are those involving multiple interacting factors or systems, leading to a range of symptoms and functional limitations. Fluctuating health conditions are those where symptoms and functional impacts vary significantly over time, rather than remaining stable.
• Findings from staff and clients are grouped into themes, for example ‘decision-making is justifiable and free from bias'. This does not mean that staff and clients were directly asked whether this was the case; however, they were shown the decision-making principles (in the case of staff) and the intended outcomes (in the case of clients) that relate to this theme. When we refer to staff perceptions of this theme we are referring to the discussions about the associated principles; and when we refer to client perceptions of this theme we are referring to the discussions about the associated intended outcomes.
• The report also comments on whether experiences of clients and staff are ‘more aligned’ or ‘less aligned’ with the decision-making principles and intended outcomes. ‘More aligned’ is used to indicate that experiences of staff were in line with the decision-making principles to be used by staff and that the experiences of clients were in line with the intended outcomes of decision-making. ‘Less aligned’ is used to indicate that these experiences were not in line with the decision-making principles and intended outcomes.
• Some findings in the report do not directly relate to the implementation of decision-making policy, rather, they were more related to the operational processes involved during decision-making. While some of these findings were retained in the report, they do not directly translate to recommendations for decision-making policy as they were out of scope.

1.5 Glossary of staff roles

Note that the roles below are those relevant to this evaluation specifically. Some of the staff below have additional roles that are less directly linked.

• Case Managers – those who have overall responsibility of determining entitlement to a disability benefit. The main decision-makers.
• Decision Team Managers – line managers to Case Managers, providing a supporting role and working to ensure quality and consistency of decision-making within and across their teams.
• Quality Support Staff – randomly select cases with decisions already made and conduct quality assurance checks on the decision-making underpinning these cases. Raise anything that they flag to decision team leaders.
• Decision Support Staff – support Case Managers with decision-making, specifically, with understanding the guidance and identifying any areas that might need further insight from Scottish Government Policy and Legal colleagues.
• Health and Social Care Practitioners – referred to as ‘practitioners’ throughout the report for ease. Can provide further support to Case Managers in decision-making by providing further professional insight into cases, for example through their health, care or social work expertise. These staff also conduct consultations to help gain a better understanding of the impacts of clients’ health conditions and needs, to aid in Case Manager decision-making.