Overcoming barriers: older people and Income Support
A hard copy of this report summary can be obtained by contacting Paul Noakes & #160;[E-Mail: Paul.Noakes@dwp.gsi.gov.uk] or by writing to him at the 'Social Research Division, Department for Work and Pensions, 4th Floor, Adelphi, 1-11 John Adam Street, London WC2N 6HT'.
Research Report No. 100
By Paddy Costigan, Helen Finch, Beverley Jackson, Robin Legard and Jane Ritchie
In response to the 1997 Government manifesto commitment to poorer older people the Department of Social Security began a programme of review and research to investigate the experiences and attitudes of elderly people who were entitled to, but not in receipt of Income Support (IS).
As part of this programme the Department of Social Security commissioned the National Centre for Social Research (formerly SCPR) with the Office for National Statistics (ONS), to undertake research to identify the most important barriers to the take-up of IS amongst people aged 60 or over. The research also sought to identify ways in which take-up amongst entitled non-recipients could be increased.
The research encompassed both qualitative research & #150; amongst pensioners and with representatives of the Benefits Agency (BA), the Local Authorities (LA) and relevant voluntary organisations & #150; and a quantitative survey of pensioners. These were identified from the Family Resources Survey between April 1995 and June 1996 as apparently entitled to IS, but not currently receiving it.
The main findings were:
- Entitled Non-Recipients (ENRs) of IS do not remain that way indefinitely. A quarter of pensioners identified as ENRs two and a half years prior to the research were in receipt of IS when interviewed; a further quarter had become ineligible due to changes in their circumstances. However, 48 per cent of pensioners still appeared to be entitled non-recipients of IS.
- ENRs do not admit to particular difficulties in managing on their current incomes. Although older people have a known tendency for higher thresholds of perceptions of discomfort or disadvantage.
- ENRs displayed varying degrees of resistance to claiming IS. However, even a high level of resistance did not necessarily prevent a claim being made.
- Barriers to claiming are a mixture of attitudinal resistance, lack of or ‘incorrect’ knowledge about IS and dislike of the procedures involved.
- The improvements most widely cited as likely to encourage a claim tended towards avoiding the need for pensioners to go to the benefit office. The most popular suggestion overall was a home visit by a BA official (31 per cent), followed by receiving a letter about potential entitlement from the DSS (26 per cent). For the most resistant non-claimants, the most popular suggestion was being able to receive IS as an add-on to Retirement Pension & #150; rather than as a separate benefit.
Introduction
This research was commissioned by the Department of Social Security (DSS) as part of the programme of research on poorest pensioners and arises from the Government’s manifesto commitment to examine the means of delivering more automatic help to poorer pensioners.
The principal aims of the research were to identify the most important barriers facing older people who, although entitled, did not claim Income Support (IS), and to explore possible solutions to non take-up. A further aim was to identify those factors which had motivated current older recipients to proceed with their claim for IS.
The research was undertaken by the National Centre for Social Research (formerly SCPR) together with the Office for National Statistics (ONS). The research employed both quantitative and qualitative methods and was carried out in three main stages:
- The first stage involved depth interviews with 37 Entitled Non-Recipients (ENRs) and ‘new’ recipients of IS. The interviews explored the full range of factors inhibiting take-up as well as people’s suggestions for encouraging claims.
- The second stage was a quantitative survey carried out among a sample of ENRs to quantify the attitudinal and behavioural factors identified in the depth interviews.
- The third stage included nine depth interviews and four group discussions with staff from the Benefits Agency (BA), local authority welfare rights workers and voluntary sector staff.
Entitled non-recipients’ status:
Pensioners included in the survey were identified as potential entitled non-recipients of IS in their Family Resources Survey (FRS) interview (1996). The survey showed that ENRs do not remain that way. Since first being identified as IS ENRs about two and a half years earlier:
- 24 per cent were now not eligible for IS, because of changes in their savings which had taken them beyond the eligibility threshold;
- 23 per cent had submitted a successful claim, thus confirming their entitlement;
- Five per cent had submitted a claim which had shown them not to be entitled to IS;
- The remaining 48 per cent had still not submitted a claim for IS. This group of non-claimants were presumed still to be ENRs, and formed the main focus for the research.
Degree of resistance to claiming Income Support
Based on the respondents’ attitudes to claiming IS and towards aspects of the claiming process, the non-claimants were classified into one of three groups: low resistors, medium resistors and high resistors.
- The ‘low resistors’ were not inherently adverse to the idea of claiming IS, and were probably held back more by a combination of ignorance and inertia.
- At the other end of the spectrum, the ‘high resistors’, were extremely adverse to claiming IS because of underlying attitudes towards income-related benefits and the anticipated claim process.
- Medium resistors fell in between these two groups.
The high resistors were generally older than the medium and low resistors, and had significantly lower incomes. Despite this, the high resistors were also more likely to report themselves as managing very or quite well on their current income compared to others.
Barriers to claiming
The research identified two main dimensions to the barriers to claiming IS:
- An attitudinal component, which here is broadly described as the ‘stigma’ dimension. The pensioners wished to remain independent and self sufficient in older age, they expressed a concern that claiming IS could be a threat to their pride and independence; and
- A ‘process’ dimension, consisting of objections to, or negative perceptions of, various aspects of the claim process. For some these negative images were based on past memories and images of the history of the social security system. Images of those claiming benefits tended to be negative, viewing claimants as ‘spongers’ or ‘scroungers’.
There were overlaps between these two main types, and in practice they were inter-related. The process aspects of making a claim were important but were under pinned by perceived stigma which deterred the ‘highest resistors’ from claiming. The stigma problem is hardest to address directly, but the research shows that if aspects of the claim process improved some of the stigma could be removed.
Evidence from the survey shows that amongst pensioners, the ‘stigma’ dimension slightly outweighs the ‘process’ dimension. In contrast, advisory staff from the Benefits Agency (BA), local authorities and voluntary organisations emphasised ‘process’ features as the more important deterrents to claiming.
The research showed that certain aspects of the process need to be improved. The report illustrates many ways in which this might be tackled, derived from the qualitative findings. Other key factors identified by the research, which could remove some of the barriers to claiming IS included; reinforcing the notion of entitlement, and getting endorsement from authority figures (such as professionals with whom older people come into contact) that claiming their entitlement is a legitimate thing for people to do.
For older people, practical barriers to claiming included:
- A perceived lack of information, and transparency, about the criteria for entitlement
- The complexity of the application form
- Problems of physical access, and transport to and from the benefit office.
Other practical barriers involving stigma included:
- The need to reveal financial details
- Terminology (e.g. ‘benefit’, ‘support’)
- A perceived lack of privacy in BA offices
- The age and perceived attitude of BA staff who deal with pensioners.
Triggers to claiming
A high level of resistance did not always prevent a pensioner from making a claim. Several factors were highlighted which could, and did, overcome barriers to take-up.
Some triggers were purely practical ones - e.g. a change of circumstance resulting in a dramatic drop in income, or a person on a fixed income confronted with an unexpected bill. These circumstances forced some people into claiming IS, however reluctantly, and go a long way to explaining why some high resistors nonetheless end up by making a claim.
The report, however, concentrates more on triggers that could be put into place to encourage people to claim. In terms of the wider picture, these include a range of suggestions made by pensioners themselves:
- Making IS an automatic payment without a need to claim (this emerged from a belief that the government already holds enough information to be able to know whether a person is entitled to IS). Further research, already under way, should indicate the extent to which this would be possible in practice.
- Having a single claim form for all relevant benefits.
- Addressing the image problem of benefits administrators - for some pensioners, the benefit administrator seems too much like a watchdog and too little like a personal advisor.
Improvements that would encourage people to claim
A range of more limited possibilities were explored in the quantitative survey. These identified the following factors as most likely to encourage people to consider making a claim for IS:
- Home visits by BA staff;
- A letter from the DSS informing the pensioner(s) that they might be eligible for Income Support.
The suggestion of a letter, in particular, had wide appeal spanning all groups accross the resistance spectrum.
Conclusion
The research found that pensioners identified as ENRs do not necessarily stay that way. A quarter of pensioners identified as ENRs two and a half years prior to the research were in receipt of IS when interviewed. A further quarter had become ineligible due to changes in their circumstances, such as a rise in income or savings which had brought them out of entitlement.
Pensioners who appeared entitled to IS, but not currently claiming did not admit to any particular difficulties in managing on their current incomes. Although older people have a known tendency for higher thresholds of perceptions of discomfort or disadvantage, there was no real difference here between IS claimants and entitled non recipients.
The degree of resistance that ENRs displayed towards claiming IS covered a wide spectrum. They were not all highly resistant to claiming, and the level of resistance they displayed did not always preclude a claim.
The barriers which the research identified revealed a mixture of attitudinal resistance and lack of, or ‘incorrect’ knowledge about IS and dislike of the procedures involved.
There was a strong view that more publicity should be given in relation to IS, and active encouragement offered to older people to make a claim. Only about half of the pensioners were aware of any publicity surrounding IS. BA staff strongly endorsed the need for a publicity campaign.
The improvements most widely cited as likely to encourage a claim tended towards avoiding the need for pensioners to go to the benefits office. The most popular suggestion overall was a home visit by a BA official, followed by receiving a letter about potential entitlement from the DSS. For the most resistant non-claimants, the most popular suggestion was being able to receive IS as an add-on to Retirement Pension.