People with communication needs and the Scottish social security system: fulfilling the expectations of ‘Our Charter’

This is our first report under our function to review whether people are getting the service the Social Security Charter says they should expect.

Research focus

This first Charter report is a small-scale, scoping research report focusing on people with communication needs arising from an impairment. Using qualitative information, this report also highlights areas for future research and investigation.

For six months in 2024 we worked with third sector organisations to hold focus groups with people with communication needs and their advisers. We also undertook five structured interviews with people in the third sector with expertise in communication needs and with VoiceAbility, which delivers advocacy support.

Key findings

Overall, participants in the research said their experiences of Social Security Scotland were better than with the Department for Work and Pensions. Staff were friendly, there were clearer and less intrusive questions, and no face-to-face assessments. However there were specific concerns about how Social Security Scotland works with people with communication needs, listed below.

Interactions with staff (Section 2)

Participants felt that staff had not responded to their particular access or communication needs. Some participants said they had been in contact with multiple advisers and had to either repeat the same information they had already given, or were given information which appeared to them to be inconsistent with what another adviser had said. Participants also felt that staff should proactively identify communications needs and accessibility requirements where possible rather than waiting for someone to ask (particularly as people may be reluctant to ask).

Recommendation 1: To ensure people don’t need to repeatedly tell Social Security Scotland about their individual communication needs, Social Security Scotland should ensure an accurate record of people’s communications and access requirements is kept, maintained and used by staff.

Some participants also reported a lack of flexibility by Social Security Scotland staff in how clients were communicated with, perhaps from not personalising standard information to take individual needs and circumstances into account, or staff not understanding communications and access needs. Participants recommended that staff should have specific impairment awareness training (such as sensory loss).

Recommendation 2: To enable individuals to receive appropriate communications, support Social Security Scotland should monitor and regularly review the types of support its client base may require.

Some participants also had support from a support worker or a welfare rights adviser from a third sector organisation, requiring them to give consent for Social Security Scotland to speak to their adviser on their behalf. Some participants felt that the way that Social Security Scotland required consent to be given was inaccessible given their communication needs. For example, a Deaf client was told to make noises on the phone to indicate consent, which both the client and their adviser felt was inappropriate and undignified. Participants who were also welfare rights advisers also stated that Social Security Scotland staff varied in their responses to handling consent and ongoing ‘mandates’ to communicate with an adviser, with some staff being more accommodating than others. In some cases this was resolved only by going through the complaints process.

Recommendation 3: To enable people with communication needs to express consent for a third party to act on their behalf, Social Security Scotland should consider if there are ways to improve the way it obtains consent.

Barriers faced by people with communication needs (Section 3)

The overall service by Social Security Scotland was regarded positively, with user-friendly language, though experiences could also depend on the staff member dealing with the claim.

Participants said that having information in accessible formats is crucial, as being able to understand information can have consequences for benefit entitlement. Whilst welcoming the range of channels of communication with Social Security Scotland (website, phone letter etc), some participants said that one or more channels were inaccessible due to their communication needs.

Participants also mentioned instances where a request for accessible communications had been made but had not been met. For example, clients who had told Social Security Scotland they could not read or could not use the phone were still communicated with in that way, and Easy Read resources / British Sign Language support was not always available.

Recommendation 4: To ensure no claimant is unable to access information due to their communication needs, Social Security Scotland should review its inclusive communication practices with a view to ensuring they are not a barrier to people with communication needs interacting with the Scottish social security system.

Recommendation 5: To understand and address any barriers to the take-up of benefits by people with communications needs, Social Security Scotland and the Scottish Government should undertake further research

Application process (Section 4)

There were concerns arising from the complexity of benefit rules and application processes; long hold times on the phone; waiting for a decision which could cause additional anxiety. Such concerns are likely to be common experiences for many other claimants. However, these issues and their impact could be amplified for people with communication needs, especially if not receiving information in the appropriate format. Many participants also spoke about the difficulties in getting support and the time taken to get support in place, e.g. British Sign Language interpretation. Participants feared that delays in getting support could delay their application or cause them to miss deadlines relating to their claim.

Recommendation 6: To ensure people with communications needs can access support from external organisations as quickly as possible, Social Security Scotland should work with stakeholders and partners to identify the causes of any delays and address them.

Participants were generally unaware of the advocacy service provided by VoiceAbility and felt that the service and the right to advocacy could be promoted more.

Recommendation 7: To gather evidence on people’s understanding and availability of advocacy support, Social Security Scotland should include awareness of and use of advocacy in its client survey and other research.