Literature Review: Decision-making for Adult Disability Payment

1.1 Overview

The Scottish Commission on Social Security (SCoSS) commissioned The Lines Between toconduct a rapid evidence review that considers literature about the decision-making process for Social Security Scotland’s Adult Disability Payment (ADP). This review considered the initial decision-making process, the redetermination and appeals process, and uptake of Short-term Allowance (STA).

SCoSS plays an essential role in the development and delivery of a Scottish Social Security system based on fairness, dignity and respect by providing independent scrutiny of legislation and practice. Their full functions are set out in the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018.¹Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 SCoSS is separate from the Scottish Government and carry out their work independently of both Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Parliament. Since their formation in 2019, their role has primarily focused on scrutinising new social security regulations. SCoSS also has a remit to assess the extent to which any or all of the expectations set out in the Scottish social security charter are being fulfilled, and making recommendations if those expectations are not met. For that reason, the evidence contained in this report was considered alongside Social Security Scotland’s charter, ‘Our Charter’, to support SCoSS’s statutory role in evaluating the Scottish social security system’s compliance with the commitments outlined in their charter.

The following research questions guided the research, analysis and reporting:

• What data exists to enable a comparison between initial decisions on Personal Independence Payment (PIP) and ADP entitlement?
• Why are Personal Independence Payment (PIP) decisions more likely to receive a reconsideration when compared with ADP redeterminations?
• Why are ADP determinations more likely to be changed at the redetermination stage?
• Why are awareness and use of STA low?
• What evidence exists on the extent to which social security charter expectations are being met in this area?

1.1.1 Background on ADP

ADP is financial assistance provided by Social Security Scotland to people with a long-term health condition or disability that affects their daily lives. The devolved benefits payment was introduced in 2022 by Social Security Scotland to replace Personal Independence Payment (PIP) which is run by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).

Like PIP, ADP is made of two parts: a daily living component and a mobility component. The daily living component supports qualifying people who need help with everyday tasks, such as preparing food, washing and bathing, communicating verbally, and making budgeting decisions. The mobility component considers a person’s ability to plan and follow a journey and their ability to move around. The mobility component is not dependent on a physical disability, for example, an individual could be eligible due to a mental health or cognitive condition. Social Security Scotland clients may qualify for one or both components of ADP and the amount received depends upon how their condition affects their ability to carry out the tasks listed above. Both awards offer standard and enhanced rates and receipt of those awards is based on a points system assigned to clients during the decision-making process.

ADP is not a means-tested benefit. You have to be resident in Scotland (between the ages of 16 and State Pension age) and either meet the disability conditions or be terminally ill to be eligible. Clients apply directly to Social Security Scotland for ADP²In the past, they could also apply via case transfer, which is the process of moving from a UK controlled benefit such as PIP to one administered by Social Security Scotland, such as ADP, although that has now ended..

In creating a new devolved social security system, Social Security Scotland set out to develop a charter that would establish service standards that people can expect from the social security system in Scotland. Social Security Scotland’s ‘Our Charter’ commits the service to align with principles of treating people with fairness, dignity and respect. This research examines the evidence to determine whether the expectations outlined in ‘Our Charter’ are being met, with a focus on decision-making considerations.

1.1.2 Comparing data on ADP and PIP

This research involved considers distinctions in decision-making processes related to ADP and PIP at each stage of review. To prioritise lived experiences, there is a focus on qualitative data gathered from ADP clients and PIP claimants. While official statistics are included, different approaches to data gathering and presentation make comparisons of statistical information more difficult.

Throughout the report, to provide clarity, data tables which consider information about ADP are coloured purple and data about PIP is in blue.

1.2 Methods

1.2.1 Identification of evidence

As a main concern of this report was to identify gaps, the scope of research was left intentionally broad, particularly as a tool of comparison between ADP and the PIP. Evidence searches included research produced by:

• Official statistics, government reports (e.g., Social Security Scotland, DWP), and Freedom of Information requests
• Peer-reviewed academic literature
• Grey literature, including stakeholder reports, unpublished studies, and submissions from advocacy groups.

Evidence and literature were considered in scope if it met the following criteria:

• Published in 2015 or thereafter³Where an article or report was exceptionally relevant, researchers accepted an earlier publication date. This only occurred in two instances with publications from 2014.
• Included evidence that focussed on Scotland and the UK, and, in cases of exceptional relevancy, international groups.
• Research that examines the decision-making process for social security benefits, particularly any appeals, reassessment or redetermination processes or uptake of any time-limited assistance of benefits, such as Short-term Assistance (STA).

Each source identified was reviewed and coded using a framework structured around the research questions and ‘Our Charter’. In total, researchers reviewed 114 sources. While many sources were deemed out of scope, any uncited but interesting sources are provided in a ‘Continued Reading’ section in Annex A. We have removed any literature produced by government bodies from this selection.

1.2.2 Summary of evidence

This evidence review cites 70 sources. Of those, all referred to the decision-making process of the benefits system in Scotland or the UK either directly or indirectly, e.g., official statistics around award rates. Just under half of the sources considered PIP exclusively. The remaining sources considered ADP. Outside of official reporting, some research on ADP positioned it in relation to PIP or referenced the DWP in the analysis.

Just over half of our sources originated from the Scottish Government, the UK Government, Northern Ireland’s Department for Communities or another public body. This included four references to Freedom of Information requests and review of five different reporting periods for official statistics and client surveys. Where possible, client survey data about ADP and Social Security Scotland have been considered over time to understand any changes. However, as noted throughout this report, due to the recent introduction of ADP and changes to the reporting structures and styles, data is not always consistent over time.

Third sector research, case studies and reports make up around a quarter of the research analysed as do academic papers, about half of which are briefing papers.

Where possible we have included the lived experiences of ADP clients and PIP claimants. Qualitative research cited includes government client surveys, government reports which include focus groups, interviews or stakeholder panels, reports from voluntary sector advocates and academic research.

The most contemporary research available was cited, particularly for ADP. However, as some research identified, when comparing ADP to PIP, there was often a need to compare ADP with PIP at the same stage of development, i.e., the Independent Review of Adult Disability Payment (at year three of the programme) with the First and Second Independent Review of Personal Independence Payment (at year three and five of the PIP programme) rather than current PIP data.

Alongside the iterative search, key stakeholders as identified by SCoSS were contacted in the Call for Evidence. In total, 16 stakeholders engaged in this process.

1.2.3 Framing the Review in Relation to ‘Our Charter’

Chapter 6 provides an analysis of the evidence in relation to the goals presented in Social Security Scotland’s charter, ‘Our Charter’. It provides a frame to understand how the evidence explored aligns with the four key tenets:

• A people’s service: We are here to help you get everything you are entitled to.
• Processes that work: We will design services with the people who use them.
• A learning system: We will encourage feedback and empower people to deliver the best service possible.
• A better future: We will invest in the people of Scotland – making a positive difference to all our lives.

This is to clearly see where future research may help improve understanding of alignment with charter goals.

This report also hopes to abide by some key features of the charter, including using evidence that is inclusive and by writing a report that is accessible and readable by all.

1.3 In this report

The report has been organised in the following way:

• Chapter 2 presents data on initial decision-making for both ADP and PIP. It uses official statistics, client survey data, government-commissioned research and qualitative research with stakeholders to build out the depth and breadth of comparison possible between ADP and PIP.
• Chapter 3 examines the redetermination process for ADP. Where possible, it provides a comparative examination of the PIP process to explore why there are differences in redetermination and mandatory reconsideration rates, as well as the greater likelihood a redetermination will be changed as compared to reconsiderations.
• Chapter 4 presents an overview of the data on ADP appeals and where possible compares it to the relevant appeals process for PIP.
• Chapter 5 considers data on the update of Short-term Assistance (STA).
• Chapter 6 frames the data examined in relation to the Social Security Scotland charter, ‘Our Charter’.

Our final chapter presents concludes the report with a summary of topics discussed.