Trust in IBCA

Trustworthiness

Community members are divided on how trustworthy they feel IBCA is. Whilst just over a third (34%) feel it is trustworthy, a similar proportion (31%) think it is untrustworthy.

Levels of trust in IBCA are similar to levels of trust in the NHS.

Ability to fulfill its aims

Around a third (37%) think IBCA will fulfil its aim to deliver compensation to each and every one entitled to it, without exception. However a similar proportion disagree (35%).

Confidence in IBCA's ability to meet its aim seems to mirror trust in IBCA; those who view IBCA as trustworthy are significantly more likely to agree that it will bring compensation to each and every one who is entitled to it (63%). Similarly, those who do not trust IBCA are significantly more likely to disagree with the statement (62%).

This table shows respondents' views on IBCA's trustworthiness: 12% consider it very trustworthy, 22% fairly trustworthy, 25% neither, 17% fairly untrustworthy, 14% very untrustworthy, and 10% don't know.

Community members aged 75 or older are more likely to view IBCA as trustworthy – with almost half (46%) of this age group perceiving it as trustworthy. In contrast, those aged between 35 and 54 are more likely to distrust IBCA (41% compared to 31% overall).

This table compares trustworthiness ratings across four organizations. IBCA: 12% very trustworthy, 22% fairly trustworthy, 25% neither, 17% fairly untrustworthy, 14% very untrustworthy, 10% don't know. NHS: 7% very trustworthy, 30% fairly trustworthy, 23% neither, 19% fairly untrustworthy, 17% very untrustworthy, 3% don't know. Department of Health and Social Care: 4% very trustworthy, 17% fairly trustworthy, 26% neither, 18% fairly untrustworthy, 25% very untrustworthy, 9% don't know. UK Government: 2% very trustworthy, 10% fairly trustworthy, 17% neither, 22% fairly untrustworthy, 45% very untrustworthy, 3% don't know.

Respondents told us that the levels of trust in IBCA are broadly similar, albeit it slightly lower, to levels of trust in the NHS (34% trustworthiness in IBCA compared to 37% trustworthiness in the NHS).

This table shows agreement with the statement that the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme will bring compensation to everyone entitled, broken down by trust levels. All respondents: 12% strongly agree, 25% tend to agree, 19% neither, 20% tend to disagree, 16% strongly disagree, 10% don't know. Those who view IBCA as trustworthy: 24% strongly agree, 36% tend to agree, 14% neither, 12% tend to disagree, 3% strongly disagree, 9% don't know. Those who view IBCA as untrustworthy: 4% strongly agree, 13% tend to agree, 15% neither, 28% tend to disagree, 34% strongly disagree, 6% don't know.

The replies we received told us that older people from the community are more likely to think IBCA will fulfil its aims - almost half of those aged between 65 and 74 (44%) and 75+ (46%).

Understanding why

Respondents were offered the opportunity to provide more detailed feedback about the level of trust they felt in IBCA to bring compensation to each and every one who is entitled to it, without exception.

This table shows reasons why respondents agree that the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme will bring compensation to everyone entitled: 32% mentioned the process, 27% discussed justice for those impacted, 18% referenced perceptions of IBCA, and 3% mentioned communication.

Comments from respondents included:

• IBCA are working very hard to achieve this, it will take time for it to be done, I accept that I will be last to be compensated. Still believe that I will be, at years of age, I hope that I won't have to wait too long. I trust that IBCA has my best interests at heart.
• I believe Sir Brian Langstaff won't give up on the people that have suffered from this terrible cover up. He will make sure that we will all get what we deserve.
• Because it is separate from the Government who have allowed this scandal to go on far too long.
• They seem to want to compensate all those who have suffered as victims of the Infected Blood Scandal, along with their families, carers who have watched their suffering.
• I believe this system to be fairer on everybody applying for compensation.
• The scheme seems to be running well atm. I keep an eye out for email updates. I am waiting to be able to put a claim in myself.
• The information that is found on the website lists who are entitled and with the latest infographics, it makes it much easier to understand.

However, of those who agree IBCA will fulfil its aims, 50% of them shared negative mentions of IBCA in their feedback. These comments included:

• There remain those infected who didn't realise for some time, they need justice and compensation too.
• We have to trust the Authority to deliver the scheme as otherwise we will not be correctly compensated. Our issue is with the delays and constant fobbing off and inefficiency in delivery.

This table shows reasons why respondents disagree that the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme will bring compensation to everyone entitled: 49% mentioned delayed process, 41% discussed flawed process, 38% referenced evading responsibility, 28% mentioned complicated process, and 17% expressed lack of trust.

Comments from respondents included:

• Because whenever you call up and ask to register in it, they tell you that the lines are not open yet. It is rolling out far too slow and has started to roadblock itself and stop making payments.
• Because our community have been let down over and over again and they keep moving the finishing line. They are waiting for us to die to save money.
• Because my parent died as an affected person after the announcement of their entitlement. They will not be able to pass that money onto my children, so you will not be paying compensation to everyone who was eligible.
• Because of the delay in people getting the compensation too many will die before they receive any form of justice. I strongly believe that justice delayed is justice denied.
• They are doing it as slowly as possible to avoid paying out.
• Nothing I have seen to date suggests that the victims are at the heart of IBCA or the Cabinet Office. The goal posts have been moved on a few occasions clearly for money saving reasons causing more unnecessary suffering to victims.
• There are too many barriers for infected people that have not been able to register on one of the 4 nationwide schemes. Everyone that is infected should have been allowed to register and then the ones that cannot provide evidence should be weeded out.
• The paperwork is too complicated when surely if it's on a death certificate it should be accepted. I am angry at how long this is taking and have very little faith that people will receive compensation before dying.

This table shows reasons why respondents neither agree nor disagree that the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme will bring compensation to everyone entitled: 46% mentioned delayed process, 31% discussed flawed process, 24% referenced evading responsibility, 19% mentioned complicated process, and 11% expressed lack of trust.

Comments from respondents included:

• I fear that the continual delays to compensation roll out will result in it not reaching people who are entitled to it in time. In the case of affected individuals, it was stated in a previous report that if they pass away before compensation is received that the compensation dies with them. This is unacceptable. People have waited decades for their loss to be recognised and compensated.
• It's been over a year since the inquiry finished and compensation was agreed to be paid but we've still not been given dates as to when payments will be made only updates that tell us nothing useful.
• There are already inequalities within the scheme, which will be swept under the carpet.
• I do no envy your agents at all, and I believe complex family structures will mean people deeply affected by this will not be recognised. A line needs to be drawn somewhere, and structure needs to be put in place, but we are dealing with emotional issues, which quite often are unquantifiable. I believe that people will fall through the cracks, and as such won't get compensation that they deserve.
• Although they have been respectful and courteous in their correspondence, this evasiveness has troubled me.
• At this stage I have no information to make this judgement, the system as I perceive it is slow and complicated, leaving me doubting the delivery aspects for everyone.
• I don't have any faith in the entire compensation framework.

This table shows detailed trust ratings (on a scale of 1-10) for IBCA to deliver the compensation scheme in various ways, including percentages for do not trust at all (1), distrust (2-3), trust (8-9), completely trust (10), and average scores. Categories range from highest average score of 5.8 for free from stigma to lowest of 2.6 for quickly.

This table shows trust ratings by respondent status for three key delivery aspects. For quickly: all respondents 9% distrust and 17% trust, directly or indirectly infected 13% distrust and 17% trust, affected 10% distrust and 15% trust. For efficiently: all respondents 14% distrust and 14% trust, directly or indirectly infected 17% distrust and 12% trust, affected 17% distrust and 11% trust. For independent of government: all respondents 17% distrust and 10% trust, directly or indirectly infected 22% distrust and 8% trust, affected 17% distrust and 7% trust.