Addressing inequalities

• The Scheme is used often to support access to healthcare
• Smaller gains for volunteering, work, and education
• Access to services was improved to a greater extent for disabled cardholders
• Most cardholders reported that the Scheme saved them money and reduced travel costs
• Disabled cardholders, and those with financial difficulties, were more likely to think the Scheme saved them larger amounts of money

Access to services

Table 17 details levels of agreement among survey respondents on whether the free bus pass had improved access to education and training, healthcare, work, and volunteering opportunities. The biggest improvements were in relation to access to healthcare, where half of the respondents (50%) either agreed or strongly agreed that the free bus pass had improved access.

Table 17 Access to services (survey respondents)

Across all aspects, a greater proportion of disabled cardholders indicated that it had improved access compared to those who held an over 60 card (see Annex - Tables 25-28). Table 18 below provides a summary of responses and shows that the largest difference was in access to healthcare, where 70% of disabled cardholders either agreed or strongly agreed that the free bus pass had improved access, compared to 38% of over 60 cardholders.

Table 18 Access by card type - those who agreed or strongly agreed (survey respondents)

Across the survey feedback and the focus groups, most discussion focused on the way that the Scheme improved or supported access to work and volunteering opportunities. There was evidence that people had found new jobs and volunteering opportunities as the Scheme had facilitated travel to different areas:

It had also allowed people to take on particular jobs, part-time roles and volunteer positions which would not have been cost effective if paying the fare. Focus group participants who volunteered for charities also noted that the Scheme meant that they did not have to pass on travel expenses to the charities, which they felt was a valuable social impact.

Only a few survey respondents discussed how the Scheme had improved access to education. This had been beneficial both in terms of facilitating physical access, but also helping to reduce the cost of access and student life.

Financial impact on cardholders

The vast majority of respondents (93%) either agreed or strongly agreed that the free bus pass had saved them money, with little difference by card type (see Table 19).

Table 19 The free bus pass saves me money by card type (survey respondents)

Note: 94 respondents either did not know or did not answer the question

All survey respondents that had used their free bus pass in the last 12 months were also asked to indicate how much money they thought this had saved them, on average, per month. Table 20 shows that, while 17% did not know, 80% thought that they had saved some money, compared to just 3% who said they had not saved anything. Responses were mixed in relation to the amount that had been saved.

Table 20 Thinking about the last 12 months, please indicate how much money, if any, you think the free bus pass has saved you on travel each month? (survey respondents)

Note: 14 respondents did not answer this question.

Disabled cardholders were more likely to think it saved them larger amounts of money (i.e. over £50 and over £100) compared to those with an over 60 card. Similarly, those who had financial difficulties were more likely to indicate that the Scheme saved them larger amounts of money compared to those who managed well financially. There were also differences in the amounts saved by age among those with an over 60 card, however, there was no real pattern. Disaggregate results are provided in the Annex - Tables 29-31.

All focus group participants also agreed that the Scheme helped them to save money. Even those who rarely used their NEC appreciated the savings they made when they did use it, especially given the comparative cost of using trains or taxis for the same journeys.

People who had become disabled or sight impaired more recently, or who had recently qualified for the over 60 card were perhaps most likely to comment on the notable cost impacts:

Companion cardholders also stressed that the Scheme either meant they did not have to shoulder the cost of the companions travel, or allowed them to pass on financial savings to carers/companions. This helped them worry less about being impacted by or imposing financial burdens. Without access to the companion element of the Scheme, respondents reported that they would have either avoided the journey or paid for the companion to travel out of their own pocket. In that sense, the Scheme was seen as providing a double saving.

Both survey respondents and participants across different focus groups, and different card types, also commented that the Scheme helped them to save on overall costs for things such as shopping. A few noted that they were able to travel to cheaper supermarkets rather than having to shop in more expensive local convenience stores. Others suggested that they were able to visit shops more frequently rather than waiting to build up a longer list of needs or reasons for making a journey before venturing out (which they might do if they had to pay the bus fare).

Overall, it is worth noting that while most cardholders welcomed that the Scheme afforded free travel if or when they needed it, for some, the financial saving was not sufficient enough to overcome the inconvenience of bus travel. Also, for longer, inter-city journeys where people had to pre-book seats, there was some disquiet among a small number of respondents that they had to pay a booking fee. It was felt that this undermined the ‘free’ element of the Scheme.