Consultation on Regulations and Statutory Guidance under the Welfare Funds (Scotland) Act 2015

Scottish Consortium for Learning Disability
6th Floor, Merchant Exchange
20 Bell Street
Glasgow
G1 1LG

SCLD sees the advantages of employing the same method and process for SWF applications across local authorities. This could ensure a certain level of consistency and fairness, avoiding a ‘postcode lottery’ for applicants. However, we feel it’s important to acknowledge fluctuations in the cost of living across different local authority areas and would like to see this reflected in the eligibility guidance. We do not believe that setting a maximum level of income for eligibility is helpful as income is only one way of measuring personal circumstance. One suggestion could be to use local living wage calculations as a guide.

SCLD believe that it’s important for LA decision makers to review applications on a case by case basis, and to retain some flexibility when dealing with complex situations. We do not agree that eligibility should be based on welfare benefit entitlement, as there is a question around whether people with learning disabilities are currently receiving everything they are entitled to. The recent changes to Universal Credit across the country could also contribute to some confusion over eligibility, as roll-out has not happened simultaneously across local authority areas. As Case Studies published by CAB illustrate, people can experience poverty, homelessness and emergencies without being eligible for welfare benefits. (http://www.citizensadviceedinburgh.org.uk/case-studies/)

People with learning disabilities could find themselves excluded from the system twice over if they fail to meet eligibility criteria for the SWF because of an existing issue around the benefits they should be receiving but are not. In emergency situations, this could have a big impact. .

Additionally, people who are new to employment may not be financially stable and may be ill prepared to deal with emergency situations. In particular, people may be at increased risk during the period between receiving their last welfare payment and their first wage. As detailed in the Demos report ‘Ties That Bind’, people living on a low income are likely to experience multiple disadvantages, which impact their mental and physical wellbeing, as well as having a serious impact on relationships with others. (http://www.demos.co.uk/files/TiesthatbindREPORT.pdf?1390241705). We believe it could be harmful to exclude these potentially vulnerable people from receiving support.

SCLD believes that the consequences of limiting CG and CCG awards to three per household per year could be that individuals facing crisis situations are locked out of the system and are forced into more desperate circumstances. If a limit is to be placed on awards, it is essential that people are warned of this at an early stage (when they apply for the second time). It is important that the applicant has a clear understanding of the limitations on grants, and can be supported and signposted to other services when the limit is reached. In our experience of working with people with learning disabilities, lack of clear information and good communication is a problem for people engaging with local authority services.

More importantly, we feel that an individual’s application for a second grant should trigger a new process and flag the individual as requiring further support (for example, from an Welfare Rights advisor or through Adults Support & Protection legislation). SCLD feels that if an individual is applying for emergency grants more than once in a year, they are not receiving the support they need to maintain their current situation. Individuals should not reach the point of receiving 3 CG’s or CCG’s without being linked to an alternative support provider.

We feel it’s important that SWF application records are linked with other LA service records (for example, social care records). It would help SWF decision makers to build a bigger picture of the applicant’s situation to be able to access records of previous local authority engagement.

As above.

In addition to the above, SCLD feels that a broader question needs to be asked if a person is moving from community to community on multiple occasions in one year and applying for emergency grants. Decision makers should be able to assess the individual’s situation on a case by case basis and should be able to access relevant local authority records to build a more detailed picture of the needs of the applicant. Decision makers should also be able to refer applicants onto other agencies if required (for example, to Health and Social Care if adult support and protection issues are identified).

NO

We believe that if someone is moving from area to area they may require the same item on multiple occasions. Similar to the response above, we believe that a request for the same item on multiple occasions may indicate a need for more support. The decision maker should be free to use their own judgement and to assess the individual’s situation.

NO

We are not comfortable with the idea of giving priority to certain groups over others and believe that applications should be judged on the needs of each applicant. In particular, vulnerable adults who have learning disabilities may be likely to require emergency support but are less likely to fall under the category of ‘families facing exceptional pressure’.

Cash should be provided to applicants where helpful as this will avoid stigma and unnecessary restriction. However, if there is an opportunity to avoid the purchase process and associated delay in meeting the applicants needs then SCLD believe the LA should arrange a cash equivalent. This would also potentially prevent the money being misused – for example, in a situation where a vulnerable applicant faces financial abuse.

The local decision maker should ask the applicant which method they would prefer and should consider the implications of offering cash rather than an equivalent. For example: Will the applicant incur travel costs that might not be necessary? Might using cash to set up an order with a third party take more time than if the local authority were to meet the need directly? Might the applicant be subject to financial abuse? Might the individual use the money incorrectly? Local decision makers should also consider the possibility of embarrassment, stigma and inflexibility when providing cash equivalents.

YES

It is important that a situation which is an emergency is dealt with as quickly as possible. These guidelines should also be made clear to people who may apply so that they know when they need to apply by in order to have their application processed that day. Applicants should be advised that their application will not be processed until all necessary information or documentation is received, and that submitting this information is their responsibility. Once the decision maker has all the necessary information, the responsibility should shift to the LA to process the application within the set timescale. SCLD believe it is important to implement a timescale as this gives LA staff the authority necessary to prioritise grant applications.

More guidance is needed to explain what is meant by the term ‘improvements’. If the state of the property is having a negative impact on health and wellbeing, then this should be considered by the fund. An example could be damp and mould which, if fixed, can benefit the applicant in several ways and could reduce the likelihood of the applicant seeking future grants. Again, LA decision makers should have the authority to assess the situation and possible impact on the applicant and proceed if necessary. However, in the case of private lets, it is entirely the responsibility of the landlord to keep their property wind and water tight.

YES

SCLD believes that repatriation costs should be paid to individuals, but do not believe that the SWF is the correct Fund to hold responsibility for this.

NO

SCLD believes that each case should be taken on its own merit. The vulnerability of other people living in the applicant’s household should also be taken into account as they will potentially benefit from the grant for and experience varying detrimental effects if the application is not successful.

SCLD believes it is important to adopt a universal approach to communicating information about the SWF. People should not receive varying levels of information about the SWF depending on the area they live in. It is important that all people are made aware of the support available, and understand the circumstances under which they may be eligible to apply.

SCLD believes that the needs of people with learning disabilities should be considered when producing communications materials and application forms. All materials available for people with learning disabilities accessing the SWF should be presented in an easy read or accessible format and should follow Plain English guidance as much as possible. Complicated words and terms should be used if essential, but clear explanations of these terms should always be given. A good contrast between text and design colours is important to ensure that content is clear. Audio, large print and multimedia materials (CD, DVD) should also be readily available, and information about available formats should be highlighted at the front of the document.

Face to face communication is just as important, and is sometimes the preferred means of communication for people with learning disabilities. Wherever possible, efforts should be made to ensure the application process is explained to people on a one to one basis as well as via printed materials. It is equally important that LA decision makers feels confident when communicating with people who have learning disabilities and are supported to improve their communication skills.

SCLD’s Parallel Report to the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on the Progress of Implementation of the UNCRPD in the United Kingdom also outlined preferences for easy read information and communication. These included:

• Information in simple language and clear wording.

• Pictures to help make sense of words.

• The direct involvement of people with learning disabilities in creating the easy read information which is for them.

In SCLD’s experience of working with people with learning disabilities, using relatable examples and case studies can help explain how concepts and processes might apply to someone’s life. If people are clear about how CG’s and CCG’s could help them, they are more likely to engage with the process and understand it. It is particularly important that the different stages of the SWF process are communicated clearly to people with learning disabilities.

At each of these three stages, the communication needs of people with learning disabilities should be specifically considered:

1) When raising public awareness of the SWF
2) When producing accessible application forms and supporting their completion
3) When explaining the review and appeal process and procedures to applicants

N/A

A combined form would reduce bureaucracy which is important in emergency situations. This could also allow applicants to consider which grant is most appropriate for them. SCLD believes this would be better than separating forms and potentially allowing applicants to apply for the wrong grant, or to miss out on the opportunity to access information about a grant that they could be eligible for.

See response to Q16 regarding general accessibility standards.