Minimum Income Guarantee Expert Group work and potential trial in Scotland: intersectional analysis

Intersectional considerations for a trial

Designing the trial through an intersectional lens

From interviews and the online workshop discussion regarding a potential trial of a Minimum Income Guarantee in Scotland, it was clear that Expert Group members felt that this required significant further discussion and the need to identify a population group for this trial as part of the final report to the Scottish Government. The importance of this was highlighted by those working in equalities specific areas, as there was a lack of faith in this decision being taken by the Scottish Government and without the necessary expertise.

Interviews with Expert Group members indicated that there was a preference for a trial in Scotland to focus on a marginalised population group who experience compounding inequalities and where intersectional analysis can be applied. Four population groups were specifically mentioned:

• Unpaid carers – who are disproportionately women (and within that, BME women and disabled women).
• Low-income migrants with no recourse to public funds - migrant women with NRPF visa restrictions are more likely to be in poverty, and migrant women who are survivors of domestic abuse or sexual assault are further harmed, along with disabled migrant women who are often unable to access the support they need.
• Disabled adults – with a particular focus to meet the needs of disabled women, disabled single-parents, LGBT disabled adults and BME disabled adults.
• Care leavers – with a focus on care leavers who are most disadvantaged and often not responded to competently within services: young people of colour, LGBT young people, and young disabled people.

There is considerable evidence to support one of the groups above to be trial recipients and would provide significant intersectional and disaggregated data on the effectiveness of the intervention in improving people’s lives.

However, to be successful, Expert Group members agreed that a clear purpose and ambition for a trial needs to be determined. It will need to manage expectations as it cannot deliver a full Minimum Income Guarantee within devolved competency, therefore the public narrative setting around a trial will need to be clear and well evidenced. What is being trialed, what the trial hopes to achieve and how learning will be applied on completion of the trial must be made clear and determined by this group or relevant external experts ahead of implementation by the Scottish Government.

Learning from the Welsh model to apply to a Scotland trial

Interviews were held with officials and evaluators of the Welsh Basic Income Pilot for care leavers. It is important to note, however, that the Welsh model is fundamentally different from the design of the Minimum Income Guarantee (based on reform to services and wider social security) being pursued by this Expert Group. The Welsh model selected a specific marginalised group and delivered a Basic Income, which is the same base level of financial support.

The Welsh model focused on 650 care leavers turning eighteen by the trial who were given a flat monthly rate of £1600 along with financial advice through the Citizens Advice Bureau. Participants chose between the Basic Income Pilot and benefits. Whilst the trial focused on a minoritised population group, it did not analyse the experiences of this group through an intersectional lens. It does include unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and young people with children as part of the trial group. Whilst some consideration has been given to the language support needs of the former, there is no evidence of a robust intersectional analysis having taken place. This was acknowledged in interviews and discussions.

An integrated impact assessment was carried out reviewing how this trial interacted with or influenced the delivery of UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) Articles. It also included consideration for the impact on disabled care leavers who are in receipt of disability benefits or carers accessing universal credit and have dependents of their own. An Equality Impact Assessment (EQIA) was conducted, as required, assessing how this positively or negatively impacted the siloed protected characteristic population. No detailed assessment was done to review how the citizen’s basic income would be experienced by care leavers who experience multiple and compounding inequalities for example young women with caring responsibilities themselves.

What is particularly helpful about the Welsh Basic Income Pilot for care leavers is the dedicated resource of a four-year evaluation, with annual reports, which is looking into implementation, impact, and value for money.

This commitment to continuous learning from this trial is particularly evident from the multiple updated delivery guidance notes to support the implementation of this work, particularly for local authorities.

For intersectionality to be taken seriously and for this to be understood well for all agencies involved in the delivery of a similar Scotland trial, robust delivery guidance will be required and the Expert Group should recommend that all guidance is clear in its explanation of intersectionality and what needs to be considered to respond adequately to those who experience intersecting inequalities.

Learning from the Welsh model, any trial in Scotland should also consider building in support for recipients with an allocated financial support adviser (e.g., Citizens Advice). The Welsh model also included access to legal aid for unaccompanied asylum-seeking young people; this (or an equivalent advice space) should be considered for a Scottish trial through an intersectional perspective.

The Welsh pilot is being evaluated alongside a co-production group of recipient care leavers. This co-production involved writing the research questions together, considering ethical questions, data collection methodology and advice on policy or practice recommendations. Any trial in Scotland should also follow this good practice with the resourcing of a co-produced evaluation, adding to the Welsh model by ensuring that this co-produced evaluation prioritises intersectional data and analysis.

Wider considerations for a trial from interviews and the online workshop

Assessment methods and payments must be responsive to intersecting inequalities – If a means-tested method is implemented for a trial (unlike the Wales trial), the method of assessment and payment will need to be given significant consideration taking into account the limitations and biases that have been identified in Universal Rredit assessment methodology in recent years and timing of payments (Equally Ours; 2018). Whilst there are likely to be limitations to what can be reformed given the boundaries of devolved policy, efforts need to be made to “design-in” intersectionally competent methods of assessments and payments which understand and mitigate the consequences of specific compounding inequalities. It is understood and welcome that the Expert Group is considering a review of assessment and payment processes to address engrained biases as well as intersecting inequalities/prejudices which exist.

Split-Payments – The trial should, at least, follow the split-payment requests (on either timing of payment or payment destination) which can be made for Universal Credit; however, this is still an imperfect system and can create disproportionate harm for some marginalised groups (for example for women who experience domestic abuse, within which are a higher-than-average number of disabled women). As such, an iterative and flexible process should be embedded, which can regularly review intersectional patterns and problems and respond to the trial group as required.

Data collection – A clear commitment and investment should be made into collecting disaggregated and intersectional data on the implementation and effectiveness of the trial from the very start of the process. This should be published and accessible in order for the implementation to be held to account through an intersectional lens.

Intersectionality in service delivery to complement the trial – In order for a trial to be successful, it should also consider how one or more services (e.g., financial advice, childcare, social care, or employability services) can be delivered more effectively for those who experience compounding inequalities. This would support the longer-term recommendations of the Expert Group and will provide necessary evidence on the cost-effectiveness of intersectionally competent and equalities-focused design within services.

People-focused rather than place-based – Interviewees, particularly those working within equalities settings, stated the importance of any trial being designed to meet the needs of a marginalised group across Scotland rather than a geographically specific group. Whilst there have been successes through the prioritisation of a place-based approach in Scotland, these approaches are often not conducive to embedding equalities and intersectionality, particularly if the geographical locations are not diverse within the population make-up of the area.

Training and capacity of those responsible for implementation – The effectiveness of a trial delivering for those who experience compounding inequalities can only be ensured if those responsible for assessments, outreach, communications, and evaluation are knowledgeable on equalities and intersectionality. Any trial should illustrate the importance of intersectionality by demanding training and capacity building of those who will be involved (largely at the local level) in the delivery of a basic income trial.

Intersectional evaluation – The trial should include a well-resourced evaluation which, alongside co-production, embeds an intersectional analysis. This should include specific questions on the intersectional competency of design and implementation, as well as challenges experienced specifically by recipients who experience compounding inequalities.

Annual intersectionality review – As part of this evaluation, there should be specific, annual “stop and review” moments throughout the trial dedicated to intersectionality which include external expertise. This should be linked to the flexible and iterative approach of a trial and should have particular focus on the complexity of how the trial operates and inter-relates with existing systems (e.g., DWP and Social Security Scotland) for those who experience compounding and multiple inequalities. The outcomes, recommendations, and changes made from these annual reviews should be published.