Five Family Payments: evaluation

Conclusion

The purpose of this evaluation was to:

1. Evaluate the extent to which the Five Family Payments have met their policy outcomes.

2. Assess the likely contribution of the Five Family Payments to wider long-term government outcomes for children and families.

3. Discuss considerations for future policy development.

The first two of these has been achieved by reviewing the available evidence on the Five Family Payments, drawn from different sources (primarily bespoke commissioned research carried out by ScotCen, Official Statistics, and Social Security Scotland research). As discussed above, the Five Family Payments have made good progress towards their immediate, short-term, and medium-term outcomes. Based on this progress, it can be said the policies will be contributing towards the government’s long-term aims, including reduced child poverty.^[59]

Despite these positive findings, the evaluation has also highlighted some issues which could be used to inform future policy development. These are outlined below.

Considerations for policy and practice

These considerations have been drawn both from the commissioned research report by ScotCen, which is available in the full in Annex A, however they also take into account the wider evidence from Official Statistics and Social Security Scotland research which has been presented throughout this report. They are as follows:

1. There could be a need to (a) undertake further promotional work for the Five Family Payments, and (b) explore ways to maximise take-up of the benefit amongst eligible people who face barriers to claiming the benefits.

This evaluation shows that people find out about the Five Family Payments from a range of sources. It also shows the majority of people who are eligible for the Five Family Payments receive the benefits, and payments are made to people with a range of demographic and equalities characteristics from all areas of Scotland. These findings indicate that the benefits are generally well promoted. However, the findings also suggest around 1 in 10 eligible people do not claim the Five Family Payments. The evidence suggests that low awareness could be a reason why some people do not apply for the benefits. For example, some recipients say they could have claimed payments sooner but did not know about them initially. Stakeholders who support low income families also say that awareness is an issue for certain groups (e.g. families with older children). They also identify a range of other barriers to claims, such as having limited English, digital poverty, stigma, a perceived lack of benefit advisors in Scotland with in-depth knowledge of the benefit system, being a survivor of domestic abuse, and cases where people have initial applications denied (e.g. due to not providing enough supporting evidence). Therefore, to maximise take-up of the Five Family Payments, steps may be needed for further promotions, and to address barriers faced by marginalised groups who could be missing out on payments they are entitled to.

2. There could be a need to (a) review application denial reasons, and (b) clarify eligibility rules for the Five Family Payments.

While the evaluation shows that the purpose of the Five Family Payments is clear to recipients, around 1 in 3 Five Family Payments applications are denied. As applications are denied in cases where applicants are ineligible for the benefit(s), this is likely to be caused, to some extent, by uncertainty around the eligibility criteria amongst applicants. Around 1 in 10 people say the Social Security Scotland website did not make their eligibility clear. However, Social Security Scotland does not currently publish denial reasons as part of Official Statistics, so there is a lack of clarity as to which of the eligibility criteria denied applicants are failing to meet. As such, it may be necessary to review application denial reasons and take steps to clarify eligibility rules.

3. Further awareness could be raised with applicants about (a) other benefits they may be entitled to, and (b) additional forms of support (e.g. Citizens Advice Scotland).

The evaluation has shown that Five Family Payments applicants who come into contact with Social Security Scotland staff are not always told about other benefits they may be entitled to, or other forms of support that are available (e.g. via Citizens Advice Scotland). Therefore, more could be done to ensure that applicants who come into contact with Social Security Scotland staff are always informed about other benefits or support, where applicable.

4. It may be necessary to (a) explore ways to increase usage of Best Start Foods payments, and (b) investigate technical and other issues with the payment card.

Most Best Start Foods recipients report spending all or most of the money on their payment card, and the majority say the card is easy to use and that they do not experience difficulties using the card. However, the evaluation shows that around 1 in 3 recipients do not use most or all of the money on the card, and around 1 in 10 experience issues or difficulties with it – e.g. contactless payments not working, certain shops not accepting the card, or a lack of clarity where the card can be used and how the money can be spent. As such, it may be necessary to explore ways to increase the proportion of recipients using Best Start Foods payments, and investigate technical issues people experience when using the card.

5. The impact of Five Family Payments on recipients’ financial situations should continue to be monitored, and the rate of payment kept under review.

The Five Family Payments have largely met their short-term and medium-term policy outcomes relating to the financial wellbeing of recipients – i.e. reduced incidence of debt, reduced material deprivation, and reduced financial pressure on recipients’ households. It can therefore be said that, as a result, they have contributed to recent reductions in child poverty in Scotland, and are generally helping to keep children out of poverty despite cost of living increases. However, the evaluation shows that some recipients (notably families with a disabled person) still face financial difficulties and material deprivation despite the assistance of the Five Family Payments, and these difficulties have been exacerbated by the cost of living crisis. As a result, recipients’ perceptions of impact should continue to be monitored over time, and the rate of the Five Family Payments benefits (i.e. Scottish Child Payment, Best Start Grant and Best Start Foods) kept under review.

6. There could be a need to (a) continue to analyse the impact of Scottish Child Payment on the labour market and (b) continue to specifically analyse the impact of Scottish Child Payment on labour market participation in cases where clients are close to losing Universal Credit due to earnings from work.

The evaluation shows that Scottish Child Payment does not impact the work situation of most recipients, or their partners. It also indicates that, where it does have an impact, it mostly reduces barriers to labour market participation (e.g. by assisting with work-related costs such as commuting or childcare). Additionally, the payments mean some recipients (or their partners) can afford to reduce hours or work more flexibly, often to spend more time with their children. However, testimony from recipients also shows that, in some cases, Scottish Child Payment can disincentivise people from increasing their income from paid work if they are close to losing eligibility for Universal Credit due to their earnings from work. This is because increasing income from employment could make them worse-off overall due to a loss of income from benefits. Labour market analysis indicates that this effect is not negatively affecting labour market participation at scale in the economy. However, aspects of Scottish Child Payment’s design may need to be reviewed to see if changes are necessary or possible. In addition, its impact on labour market participation should continue to be analysed over time.

7. More data is required for an objective assessment of progress towards longer-term Five Family Payments outcomes.

The impact of the Five Family Payments has mostly been evaluated via mixed-methods research with recipients, involving a cross-sectional representative survey and qualitative interviews. The evidence demonstrates that, to a large extent, the benefits are meeting their intended outcomes. It also indicates they are contributing to long-term government aims for children and families. However, as mentioned in the methodology chapter, the findings are based on the participants’ perceptions of impact, as opposed to objective measures of impact. For example, most recipients say the benefits mean they do need to borrow money for certain costs (e.g. household essentials). However, further data would be needed to specify, objectively, the extent to which debt levels have reduced because of the Five Family Payments. This may be possible in the future once sufficient population survey data becomes available.^[60] However, it could also potentially be done via data linkage, which would involve matching data on people claiming Scottish benefits with data on the same people held by other organisations (e.g. DWP, HMRC and the NHS) to understand the impact of Scottish benefits on factors such as clients’ income, employment and health. Efforts should therefore be made to explore the feasibility of obtaining data to more objectively assess the impact of the Five Family Payments.