Five Family Payments evaluation: annex A - mixed methods research

Executive summary

Introduction

This research was commissioned by the Scottish Government and conducted by the Scottish Centre for Social Research (ScotCen). It will be considered alongside other evidence as part of the overall evaluation of the Five Family Payments (FFP).

The purpose of the study was to assess the experience and impact of FFP (Scottish Child Payment, Best Start Foods and the three Best Start Grant payments) both individually and collectively, on families and children receiving one or more of the payments. A secondary aim of the research was to explore the awareness, take-up and impact of FFP among seldom heard groups, particularly priority groups of low-income families at increased risk of being marginalised from the social security system.

Methodology

The research consisted of an online survey with an achieved sample of 3,922 parents and carers who had received at least one of the FFP benefits, combined with follow-up depth interviews with 33 clients and interviews with five stakeholders who work with low-income families eligible for FFP. The survey fieldwork ran from 9^th October to 8^th November 2024. The qualitative fieldwork ran from 28^th October 2024 to 27^th January 2025.

Take-up of Five Family Payments

Experiences of applying for FFP were generally positive among parents and carers. When reflecting on the FFP application process, interview participants shared their views on facilitators and barriers to take-up of the payments.

Facilitators to take-up

• Awareness of FFP and knowledge of its eligibility criteria were helpful in facilitating take-up of the payments. Parents and carers shared a range of ways in which they became aware of FFP, including: word of mouth, online research, via social media platforms and national news and through health and other professionals.
• Parents and carers found the following aspects of the application process helpful:
  • The application form was straightforward and easy to complete.
  • The provision of informal support, such as from family members, to complete the application.
  • The provision of formal support and advice from health and other professionals, including Social Security Scotland, to complete the application.
  • The ability to complete applications online.
  • The availability of combined applications to facilitate applying for multiple FFP at the same time.
  • The introduction of automation so SCP recipients will automatically receive the Early Learning Payment and School Age Payment.

Barriers to take-up

• A lack of awareness of FFP and its eligibility criteria was identified as a key barrier to FFP take-up. This could lead to eligible parents and carers not applying for FFP at all, or applying later and therefore receiving payments later than they were entitled.
• Families with the lowest levels of awareness of FFP identified by stakeholders included: those with older children, women pregnant with their first child and single parent father households.
• Stakeholders, parents and carers also identified digital poverty, digital literacy, low literacy and English language proficiency as barriers to take-up, particularly for those without anyone to help them with the application.
• Stakeholders identified Universal Credit (UC) as a qualifying benefit as a barrier to take-up of FFP. The UC form was perceived to be challenging and long to complete and some did not complete it at all while others were rejected initially due to making an error in the application. Without UC some could not claim FFP.[JM1]
• Poverty itself was described as a barrier to take-up, with stakeholders highlighting the mental burdens of living in poverty and challenges with navigating the benefits system.
• Internal and external stigma attached to applying for benefits was also raised as potentially preventing eligible families from applying for FFP. There was a view that national advertising of FFP could contribute to existing negative perceptions of benefit recipients.

Suggested ways to increase take-up

To address these barriers, stakeholders and parents and carers suggested ways to increase take-up of FFP among eligible families.

• Suggestions for greater ongoing promotion of FFP to increase knowledge and awareness of FFP included:
  • National and local advertising of FFP.
  • Promotion of FFP through third sector support organisations, schools, nurseries, community centres, and other places families tend to visit.
  • Increase the visibility of Social Security Scotland e.g. on the high street.
  • Greater provision of different versions of information about FFP in order to improve accessibility (e.g. easy read, translated versions).
• Emphasis was also put on promoting the payments to eligible families at the earliest possible time to ensure they receive all FFP when they are first entitled to do so. Additionally, it was said that those promoting awareness should also have a strong understanding of the benefits system and the eligibility criteria of FFP.
• Given the complexity of the benefits system, families having access to support was key to promoting take-up. Stakeholders emphasised the importance of good quality and ongoing training for staff who work for organisations that support low-income families to help families navigate the benefits system. A better understanding of UC and its interaction as a qualifying benefit for FFP was highlighted as a way to promote take-up of the payments. There was also a suggestion to replace UC as a qualifying benefit with another measure such as Council Tax reductions. Stakeholders also proposed the need for long term funding for organisations who provide specialist advice and support on welfare and benefits.
• To address internal stigma, parents and carers emphasised the need to promote FFP as payments for children and highlight the positive impact of receiving the payments on families.
• Due to some parents and carers experiencing long waiting times for application decisions and/or application rejections, they suggested having an online portal to check progress of an application to help families navigate the application process. Stakeholders advised that ongoing user testing of FFP application processes would help to quickly identify and address issues.

Impact of FFP on child spend

• All FFP helped increase child-spend to varying degrees. Parents and carers reported most commonly using SCP (78%) and BSG (71%) to buy items for their children, such as toys and clothes.
• Although the majority of parents and carers reported spending the payments on their children, day-to-day household costs were also a source of expenditure for SCP (66%) and BSG (29%).
• Parents and carers reported that FFP had helped ‘a lot’ with child-spend:
  • 57% of respondents reported that SCP had ‘helped a lot’ to buy things their child(ren) needed for school.
  • 50% receiving SCP reported that it ‘helped a lot’ with buying treat items for their child.
  • 65% of respondents who had received at least one BSG payment reported that it ‘helped a lot’ with buying things their child needed at key transition points (e.g. when they were born, started nursery or school).
  • 34% of respondents receiving BSF reported buying first infant formula milk, with nearly two-thirds (62%) saying that the payments ‘helped a lot’ with paying for it.
  • 57% of respondents receiving BSF said it had ‘helped a lot’ with buying healthier foods for their family.
• Food and clothing were key areas of essential child spend for children of all ages. The increasing cost of these items, however, meant that these were the main or only items that some parents and carers spent SCP on. For others, receiving FFP enabled them to buy treats and pay for social and educational activities for their children.
• Overall child spend did not vary much by season. However, parents and carers shared situations where child spend was greater, such as at the start of the school year, birthdays or during holiday periods.

Financial impact of FFP

Overall, FFP had a positive financial impact on parents and carers, though the extent of this impact varied.

Reduced financial worry

• The majority of survey respondents who received SCP (81%), BSF (70%) and BSG (77%) ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ that, as a result of receiving the payments, it made them feel less worried about money.

Reliance on FFP

• In the survey and interviews, parents and carers shared that they relied on FFP as a source of income to pay for household essentials, such as food, rent and utilities.
  • 60% of respondents receiving SCP ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ that they relied on it to pay for household essentials.
  • Parents and carers shared in interviews that they relied on SCP to see them through the month. However, the payments did not always cover all essential costs, with some parents and carers sharing how they would sometimes need to prioritise payments.
  • 64% of respondents ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ that they relied on BSF to pay for healthy foods. BSF was also used to pay for household essentials. Nearly one-third (32%) of those receiving BSF reported this.
  • Parents and carers shared that generally the timings of BSG payments worked well and they were able to pay for things their child needed at key transition points, such as when they were born, started nursery or school. In interviews, parents and carers shared being able to buy expensive essential items such as prams, cots, car seats and bedroom furniture.

Food security

• FFP also helped to reduce food insecurity, with parents and carers reporting a reduced need to use food banks or food parcels. Around three-fifths of respondents receiving SCP (64%) and BSF (59%) ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ that, as a result of the payments, they did not need to use food bank or food parcels.
• Although survey responses have highlighted an impact on emergency food aid use, parents and carers emphasised the impact of the rising costs of food on their food shopping in interviews.

Borrowing and saving

• FFP also had a perceived positive impact on borrowing and saving for parents and carers.
  • 58% of SCP recipients ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ that, as a result of the payments, they did not need to borrow money to pay for essentials (such as rent, food, bills).
  • 50% of respondents receiving BSF ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ that, as a result of the payments, they did not need to borrow money to pay for household essentials.
  • 70% of BSG recipients ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ that, as a result of the payments, they did not need to borrow money to buy things for their child.
• In interviews, parents and carers shared that they would have had to borrow money from family or go into debt if they had not received FFP. Greater financial independence also had a positive impact on their mental wellbeing. Some parents and carers were also able to save money or give their children pocket money as a result of FFP.
• Although the majority of parents and carers reported a positive financial impact of FFP, concerns were raised about the potential financial impact of SCP ending and emphasised the continued costs of supporting their older children who live at home and are no longer entitled to the payments. It was suggested that SCP should be extended until their children leave school, reached the age of 18, access further education or until they complete further or higher education. Extending the age eligibility for BSF was also suggested as continued payments would allow parents and carers to provide healthy meals and afford healthy foods for their older children.
• Parents and carers also stated that more money would allow them to better support their household and provide for their children. There were also suggestions of having additional financial support for lone parents and increasing the value of the payment during periods when costs were higher.
• Although there were parents and carers who found the timings of SCP payments helpful, there were those who continued to struggle financially to cover costs and make SCP last for the month. It was suggested that SCP should arrive on the same day each month, or parents and carers should have the choice between weekly or monthly payments to allow greater flexibility to manage their finances.

Health and wellbeing impact of FFP

• All FFP had a positive impact on the mental and physical health of parents, carers and children to varying degrees.
• Around two-thirds of survey respondents who received SCP (69%) and BSG (64%) and around one-half of BSF recipients (55%) ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ that receiving FFP had helped their own mental health and happiness.
• Around one-half of respondents who received SCP (44%), BSG (49%) and BSF (49%) ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ that receiving FFP had helped their own physical health.
• Parents and carers reported feeling an intense relief from knowing they could pay for basic household essentials and described feeling less anxious knowing they had the payments available to them. Single parents and carers also shared the challenges with supporting their household on a single income, highlighting the benefit of receiving SCP.
• Around one-half of survey respondents who received SCP (53%) and BSG (49%) and BSF (49%) ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ that receiving FFP had helped their child’s mental health and happiness.
• Around one-half of respondents who received SCP (51%), BSG (49%) and three-fifths of those who received BSF (60%) ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ that receiving FFP had helped their child’s physical health.
• Parents and carers reported that FFP enabled their children to fit in with their peer group. This included buying clothes that helped build their confidence and self-esteem and the ability to take part in social and educational activities which increased their skills and self-development. Stakeholders also highlighted the positive impact on families’ wellbeing because they could afford things for their children that other more affluent families may take for granted.
• The majority of survey respondents in receipt of BSF reported that BSF payments helped in:
  • The purchase of healthier food for the family (57% reported it ‘helped a lot’).
  • Making healthier meals for their family (52% reported in ‘helped a lot’).
  • Their child eating healthier foods (57% reported it ‘helped a lot’).
  • Their own consumption of healthier foods (47% reported it ‘helped a lot’).

Employment, education and training impact of FFP

• The majority of parents and carers reported SCP had no impact on, or was not applicable to, their work (69%) or education or training (86%) decisions.
• For the 29% of respondents receiving SCP who reported that the payment helped them with work, the most common reported way in which SCP helped was with work costs, such as with travel and clothing (45%), followed by enabling them to stay in work or work more hours (23%).
• Among those who reported an impact, SCP had varied impacts on employment, education and training decisions.
  • For some parents and carers, receiving SCP enabled them to continue to work, and to work more or less hours to meet their family’s needs. Participants shared using SCP to cover employment related costs, such as petrol and bus fares to commute to work. SCP also indirectly supported parents and carers decisions around work and education. For example, SCP helped to alleviate childcare costs to allow participants to continue or return to work.
  • Parents and carers also reported barriers to finding or remaining in employment in interviews and the survey’s open text responses. This included caring responsibilities for a disabled family member, inflexibility with scheduling around schooling, and a lack of or the cost of childcare. For those unable to work, SCP contributed to supplementing this loss in income. In some cases, this meant parents and carers were able to feel like they were still providing and financially contributing to the household.

Conclusions

The aim of this study was to explore and understand the extent to which the Five Family Payments (FFP) are meeting their short to medium-term outcomes. There is clear evidence from this study that both individually and collectively, FFP are meeting their short-term outcomes and good progress is being made towards achieving a number of the medium-term outcomes. While it is a positive picture for the majority of families, the perceived impact of FFP on families does vary.

This study has found some variation in the impact of FFP on different priority groups. For example, large families with three or more children and households with a disabled family member(s) were more likely to report that SCP helped pay for household essentials (compared with households with one or two children or without a disabled family member). Interviews with parents, carers and those who support low-income families provided some context to these findings. There are families facing greater overall costs due to the size of their family. Others have limitations on their income as a result of being the sole carer or because they cannot work, or can only work limited hours because they care for a disabled family member(s).

However, it is important to note that many priority families share one or more of the priority characteristics and the analysis undertaken for this study does not control for these interconnected characteristics. This makes it difficult to determine which individual factor, if any, is driving the relationship with particular outcomes.