Scottish Welfare Fund - statutory guidance update: Fairer Scotland Duty assessment - April 2025

Stage 3 – assessment and improvement

What options could strengthen this programme/policy/decision in its impact on inequalities of outcome?

The proposed changes to the statutory guidance ensure that it is clearer, easier to understand and more accessible for everyone which could help advance equality of opportunity for people on the grounds of their socio-economic background. Highlighting the policy intent for a proportionate and trust based approach for evidence gather, will also ensure that the impact is mitigated on those living in poverty having to expand additional costs for supporting information.

These changes align to the intent of the SWF Action Plan by Scottish Ministers. Further changes could have been made, such as guidance on award rates for crisis grants with a view to increase awards further. The SWF is a budget limited discretionary scheme and data shows high demand^[11] exceeding the budget available with many local authorities having to use higher and the highest priority levels as a way to manage expenditure throughout the year. Hearing from stakeholders and via feedback from the Statutory Guidance Committee, showed that a reasonable approach would be to tie award rates to meet key needs for individuals that is aligned to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation UC Essentials Guarantee, a proposal advocated by social policy and human right organisations.^[12]

An outline of some key changes that have been made to the guidance focused on the impact of inequalities of outcome include:

A new section regarding a trust-based approach has been included to improve the experience for applicants and help develop better relations and break potential assumptions and stereotypes. Additional text has been added to the statutory guidance that refers to children with shared care arrangements. These sections are to highlight further to decision makers that a child may be considered a dependent of both parents and that where a child is dependent on an adult, they would usually be receiving child benefit for the child, but this isn’t always the case. As such, it asks decision makers to be mindful that it might not be possible for parents with part-time caring responsibilities to provide evidence of this and as such, a trust-based approach is encouraged.

In line with a trust-based approach, there is wording in the statutory guidance to make sure that evidence that is requested from decision makers is proportionate and only requested if essential. Additional text has also been included to ensure local authorities are making reasonable adjustments for applicants with disabilities to ensure equal access to services.

An action included in the action plan was to review the cost methodology to calculate the cost of living award rates to make sure they adequately meet the increased cost of goods and services. This included assessing the removal of the under 25 rate of payment and the maximum daily award rate. To respond to this we have updated the cost methodology based on the Universal Credit Essentials Guarantee rates.

For applicants who are non-householders (for example those who are generally not responsible for rent, mortgage or primary utility bills) the food and non-alcoholic drinks rate of the UC Essentials Guarantee will be used and pro-rated for the respective number of days.

For applicants who are liable for rent/mortgage/primary household bill etc or applicants who are without accommodation e.g. sofa surfing or sleeping rough, the food and non-alcoholic + Electricity and gas rates of the UC Essentials Guarantee will be used and pro-rated for the respective number of days.

New tables will also be provided alongside the updated statutory guidance to assist decision makers with determining low income, these thresholds are expected to widen initial eligibility under low income as the rates makes positive assumptions, such as not applying the two child limit, assuming that households take up their full local housing allowance rate and taking away an adult under 25 rate. This will lead to fairer and increased awards.

The Statutory Guidance now also highlights local authority requirements when they move to ‘High (most compelling)’ for awards. This details the need for them to ensure that they impact assess to understand the impact from an equalities and socio-economic perspective and how this may impact different groups of people. This ensures that any decision is informed and that there are measures in place to address any negative impact on some groups of applicants.

What are the pros and cons of these options?

The options considered for implementation will help people facing socio-economic disadvantage and inequality. Statutory guidance that is clearer and easier to understand will make it easier for people to access the support they need. The policy intent of a trust based and proportionate approach to evidence gather will also be positive on applicants living in poverty. The changes to the cost methodology will mean increased and fairer awards for applicants.

We have not identified any cons for these options.

How could the programme/policy/decision be adjusted to address inequalities associated with particular groups? Communities of interest or of place who are more at risk of inequalities of the outcome?

We have used the evidence from the comprehensive SWF Independent Review as well as the feedback and consultation from Statutory Guidance Review Committee members to inform the changes to the statutory guidance. We will continue to keep this under review and amend our proposals as required ahead of launch and in future years. We have committed to reviewing the Statutory Guidance on an annual basis and our work with those living in poverty to inform changes to the statutory guidance.

Scottish Government officials liaised with the Poverty Alliance regarding workstream 2 of the Action Plan in Autumn 2024. As part of their ‘Get Heard Scotland’ campaign, two experience panel sessions were set up to receive feedback from those with lived experience of the SWF and the social security system in Scotland.

Panel members gave their views on staff training in relation to poverty related stigma, making an application to the fund simpler and more secure, clearer information on eligibility and improvement of accountability processes. This has led to a short introductory section in plain language with a focus on making the process clearer to applicants.

The panel helped to inform, refine and shape some of the proposed changes to the statutory guidance. For example, their feedback helped us to strengthen sections of the guidance, such as that on councils adopting a trust-based approach.