Stakeholder organisations results
Methodology
Stakeholder organisations for the pilot included those acting as application administrators, Third Sector organisations acting as Trusted Verifiers or signposting and assisting applicants, accommodation providers, educational establishments and participating bus operators. An online survey was issued by Transport Scotland to gather feedback from stakeholder organisations involved in the pilot. A link was sent to 26 third sector organisations who participated in or publicised the pilot, as well as 32 Local Authorities (and Glasgow Life), COSLA, all participating bus operators (125) and Mears, the Home Office accommodation provider in Scotland. The survey was supplemented with three focus groups, one with bus operators, one with Trusted Verifiers and one with local authorities.
The online survey was open from 10 March to 14 April 2026. Fifty-five responses were received, with 33 identified as local authorities/arm’s length organisations, 14 as Third Sector groups, five as bus operators, one as an education provider and two self-defined as “other”. Caution should be taken when interpreting percentages from the stakeholder survey due to the corresponding sample size.
The application process and scheme administration
Responses to the closed survey questions suggest that organisations generally had a positive experience of supporting delivery of the pilot. Qualitative feedback and focus group discussion highlights several key areas of learning for any future provision.
Overall, 77% agreed that the administrative process was straightforward and easy to understand, 13% said it was no different to the process for existing NCTS, while 11% disagreed. Of those who found it no different to the process for the NCTS, the majority (67%) were local authorities; in these areas, Trusted Verifiers are likely to have been responsible for the parts of the process that differed from the NCTS. Other than this, responses did not suggest any clear trend in response by organisation type.
| Level of Agreement | Respondents | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Strongly agree | 6 | 13% |
| Agree | 30 | 64% |
| No different to the process for the statutory schemes | 6 | 13% |
| Disagree | 5 | 11% |
| Strongly disagree | 0 | 0% |
| Total | 47 | 100% |
The application form was a simplified version of the standard form used for the NCTS. It was available in paper copy only, rather than digitally. Over two thirds (68%) of organisations who responded agreed that applicants had sufficient information and support to apply for the pilot, with 9% disagreeing.
| Level of Agreement | Number of Respondents | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Strongly agree | 5 | 12% |
| Agree | 24 | 56% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 10 | 23% |
| Disagree | 3 | 7% |
| Strongly disagree | 1 | 2% |
| Total | 43 | 100% |
Three-quarters (75%) of respondents agreed that the supporting guidance and advice had been helpful for them as an organisation, with 12% disagreeing.
| Level of Agreement | Number of Respondents | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Strongly agree | 10 | 20% |
| Agree | 27 | 55% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 6 | 12% |
| Disagree | 5 | 10% |
| Strongly disagree | 1 | 2% |
| Total | 49 | 100% |
Less than half (41%) of organisations had referred applicants to the translated versions of the guidance produced for the pilot by Transport Scotland.
| Response | Number of Respondents | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 18 | 41% |
| No | 26 | 59% |
| Total | 44 | 100% |
Qualitative survey and focus group feedback was generally positive about how the process had worked. The importance of collaborative working between those acting as verifiers and other key stakeholders was highlighted:
Generally speaking, applicants had sufficient information and support to apply for their card, this was largely due to the extensive engagement and collaborative work undertaken with partner organisations and verifiers working directly with asylum seekers.”
[Administrator, online survey]
“Overall, the strong partnership working with verifiers helped ensure that applicants were able to access the information and support needed to apply. The significant number of cards issued in a relatively short period attests to the effectiveness of the work/promotion by all parties.”
[Administrator, online survey]
Two survey questions focussed specifically on the Trusted Verifier role within the pilot. The role of the Trusted Verifier organisations in the pilot was to verify and confirm eligibility documents and to support the accurate completion of application forms. This support was particularly important given that English was not the first language of many individuals eligible for the pilot. Organisations acting as Trusted Verifiers included charities and community organisations working with people seeking asylum and local authorities.
In total there were 18 Trusted Verifiers involved in the pilot. Responses received in the survey include some responses from individuals working at the same organisation. Overall, 56% of respondents said that they had found the experience of acting as a Trusted Verifier very easy or fairly easy. 36% said the process was neither easy or difficult and 9% had found it fairly difficult.
| Level of Difficulty | Number of Respondents | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Very easy | 3 | 14% |
| Fairly easy | 9 | 41% |
| Neither easy nor difficult | 8 | 36% |
| Fairly difficult | 2 | 9% |
| Very difficult | 0 | 0% |
| Total | 22 | 100% |
Both the focus group and qualitative survey feedback referenced an element of initial miscommunication around the role of the Trusted Verifiers among other stakeholders, primarily local authorities. In at least one case this led to a delay to the start of applications being processed:
The process to become a Trusted Verifier was fairly straight forward. However, there was a delay in getting started with submitting our applications because the local authority did not seem to be informed of or up-to-date on the process until a few days in. However, once we knew how to submit applications and what we needed to include, the process was quite straight forward”
[Trusted Verifier, online survey]
A key area of feedback on the process overall related to eligibility, with requests from Trusted Verifiers and local authorities for clearer guidance on eligibility for both stakeholders and participants on eligibility, including how to ensure that those with an ARC are still within the asylum system:
[We would like] Clear guidance on who is eligible because ARC cards might not be a true reflection of eligibility (e.g. someone might use ARC card as proof, yet have refugee status).”
[Trusted Verifier, online survey]
“[We would like] Better way to explain to people with refugee status that they are not eligible! They have ARC because they didn't send them back so think they can still get it.”
[Trusted Verifier, online survey]
Other suggestions for improvements to the process highlighted in qualitative feedback and focus group discussion included:
- Earlier notification of the pilot starting and circulation of the guidance on processes further in advance of the start date to ensure applications could be processed efficiently straightaway.
- More information on expected processing times for issuing cards.
- Clearer guidance regarding lost, damaged or delayed cards and more efficient responses from Transport Scotland to queries on these issues.
- Wider communication beyond the targeted communications that took place for the pilot to ensure as many people as possible can benefit
- A digital application process, which should also include the capability to accept digital signatures on the application form to speed up the process.
- Guidance and support materials available in additional languages.
- More support for people outwith hotel accommodation to apply.
Impact on organisations
Organisations were asked to provide feedback on how involvement in the pilot had impacted them. Responses were split regarding whether there had been an increase in administration costs for those involved in the pilot, with 37% agreeing costs had increased and 33% disagreeing. Local authorities were more likely to agree that costs had increased with third sector organisations most likely to disagree.
| Level of Agreement | Number of Respondents | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Strongly agree | 7 | 16% |
| Agree | 9 | 21% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 13 | 30% |
| Disagree | 9 | 21% |
| Strongly disagree | 5 | 12% |
| Total | 43 | 100% |
73% of responding organisations agreed that there had been a reduction in travel costs for organisations as a result of the pilot, with 8% disagreeing.
| Level of Agreement | Number of Respondents | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Strongly agree | 13 | 50% |
| Agree | 6 | 23% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 5 | 19% |
| Disagree | 2 | 8% |
| Strongly disagree | 0 | 0% |
| Total | 26 | 100% |
Qualitative feedback indicates that this is because out with the pilot, many organisations pay travel costs to ensure people seeking asylum can access their support and services:
We were supplying bus tickets to people accessing our football activity on a Saturday which was costing us £100-£150 a week. The people who attend say it's the best thing they do. We were supplying bus tickets for many activities and have been able to expand our support massively as a result of people having these bus passes.”
“The pilot has enabled our organisation to save on the expense of providing travel for asylum seekers.”
[Trusted Verifier, online survey]
Trusted Verifier respondents were asked a specific question on how the role had impacted on their organisations. Around a quarter (27%) reported a major impact on their resources as a result of the pilot compared to 50% reporting a minor impact, with 23% reporting no impact of their organisational resources.
| Level of Impact | Number of Respondents | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Major impact | 6 | 27% |
| Minor impact | 11 | 50% |
| No impact | 5 | 23% |
| Total | 22 | 100% |
Regarding the time required for the role, 45% of Trusted Verifier respondents reporting a minor impact on their organisation, with 32% reporting a major impact.
| Level of Impact | Number of Respondents | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Major impact | 7 | 32% |
| Minor impact | 10 | 45% |
| No impact | 5 | 23% |
| Total | 22 | 100% |
In qualitative feedback and focus group discussion, organisations explained that the process was particularly resource intensive in the early stages when high volumes of applications were received. Views were split in qualitative survey feedback and focus group discussion regarding whether the resource burden on organisations would reduce after the main bulk of applications at the start of any future scheme were processed or remain high. However, there was general consensus that, for third sector organisations in particular, acting as a Trusted Verifier required a significant commitment of time and resource:
This has impacted our capacity a lot as we are a small team. We had never done a service like this before, and we had a lot of people come to our offices for the bus pass, on any day even if we had a drop-in scheduled time.”
“A huge number of staff and volunteer hours went in to providing verification. Therefore, staff cost was significant, plus the opportunity costs of time and resources that would otherwise have been dedicated to other services.
“We had to create a lot of capacity on our own services to process this. It raised stress levels and impacted other areas of our work. We had to choose between staff wellbeing or not offering a resource for the community.”
[Trusted Verifier, online survey]
Many organisations highlighted the critical need for funding for Trusted Verifiers, in particular third sector and community groups, should the pilot be extended or become permanent in the future:
There should be funding available for whoever becomes a trusted verifier or helps processing applications, so that we don't need to mobilise our own scarce internal resources and impact already overcapacity services. For our organisation, we had to make a very tough decision internally of not offering such a valuable resource to the community, or putting our staff under more pressure and stress to process this.”
[Trusted Verifier, online survey]
Impact on people seeking asylum
Organisations were asked for their feedback on how the pilot had impacted the people seeking asylum they worked with. Results support the findings from the research conducted with people seeking asylum. A large majority (94%) of organisations who responded agreed that the free travel card had made it easier for people seeking asylum to access essential services. A similar proportion (91%) agreed that the pilot scheme had made a positive impact on community integration.
| Level of Agreement | Number of Respondents | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Strongly agree | 25 | 71% |
| Agree | 8 | 23% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 2 | 6% |
| Disagree | 0 | 0% |
| Strongly disagree | 0 | 0% |
| Total | 35 | 100% |
Qualitative feedback echoed the findings from people seeking asylum themselves, with an emphasis on how the pilot allowed people seeking asylum to access essential services, including health, legal advice and education:
Without a free travel pass we had to set up [ESOL] classes that were walkable distance, which cost us as we had to use third party buildings. We also bought travel passes which were £5 per day at the time. In both cases there was a tendency for residents to go to a nearby class rather than a class that was at the correct level for their learning needs. We've been able to go on trips, to refer the residents to sports groups, to encourage them into volunteering and to send them for College interviews. They've been able to attend Home Office interviews, go to the dentist/local hospitals and go to their GP, which in one hotel's case is a 50 minute walk away.”
[Local Authority, online survey]
| Level of Agreement | Number of Respondents | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Strongly agree | 25 | 74% |
| Agree | 6 | 18% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 2 | 6% |
| Disagree | 0 | 0% |
| Strongly disagree | 1 | 3% |
| Total | 34 | 100% |
Findings were more mixed regarding whether the pilot had resulted in a decrease in people seeking asylum’s dropout rates at activities, services, or classes with 44% agreeing that it had, compared to 29% who felt it hadn’t.
| Level of Agreement | Number of Respondents | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Strongly agree | 10 | 31% |
| Agree | 4 | 13% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 9 | 28% |
| Disagree | 4 | 13% |
| Strongly disagree | 5 | 16% |
| Total | 32 | 100% |
Improvements in mental health among participants were frequently mentioned in both the focus groups and survey feedback undertaken with organisations. As with participants in the pilot themselves, respondents from organisations expressed worry about the impact of the end of the pilot on people seeking asylum and commonly called for longer term provision:
I have seen how this pilot changed the dynamic of the asylum seekers in the hotel, traveling to appointments, classes, volunteering and other needs is very costly especially when you are located in a rural area, asylum seekers cannot afford traveling with the very low financial support they have, this pilot came as a saviour for many, it gave them hope, it will really benefit them during the period they are waiting for their decisions in order to start a new life in the UK, I hope the Scheme will be extended, as this is the question and the wish I hear from asylum seekers every time I meet them.”
[Local Authority, online survey]
“We regularly support people seeking asylum, travelling to health care appointments, solicitors and in general having the freedom to explore was an issue we faced on a daily basis. However, the pass allowed these individuals to feel more empowered and independent. The pass gave them stability and a sense of belonging. We have received positive feedback but now that it has come to an end we are seeing boys feeling deflated and upset.”
[Trusted Verifier, online survey]