Future Services Consultation 2024 - Adult Social Care Grant Schemes Proposal

Insight Summary

Background

From 8 January to 31 March 2024, Hampshire County Council invited residents, partners, and stakeholders to provide their views on options to change and reduce some local services to help the Authority address a £132 million budget shortfall faced by April 2025. One of the options proposed was to withdraw all funding for the following three grants:

  • Council for Voluntary Services Infrastructure Grant
  • Citizens Advice infrastructure Grant
  • Local Solutions Grant

Who responded to the proposal?

  • In total, 3,575 responses were received to this proposal via the consultation response form, of which 60 were from organisations and 32 were from democratically Elected Representatives. Most respondents responded on all three grant schemes
  • Responses were received from all parts of the County, ranging from 109 in the borough of Rushmoor to 435 in the district of East Hampshire
  • Of those who indicated their age, most respondents (1,537) were in the 45 – 64 age category. The lowest group was under 25 year olds from whom only 27 responses were received
  • 719 (20%) had activities limited by health or a disability
  • 259 (7%) were from ethnic minority groups
  • 811 (22%) were from a household with children or young people (under 19)
  • Respondents were invited to add further comments to support their views on this proposal via an open-ended question. This allowed people to expand on impacts they felt the proposed changes would cause and suggest alternative courses of action. 1,046 respondents left an open text comment in relation to the proposal. 13 respondents also commented on the proposal to withdraw the grants in the any further comments open text box at the end of the consultation, designed to capture any further feedback to any of the proposals in the consultation. All of these comments have been shared with the service for consideration
  • A further 34 responses were received through direct correspondence via letter or email (unstructured responses) which included comments relating to this proposal. 4 of these were individuals and 26 from organisations and 4 from democratically elected representatives
  • In order to help capture the views of young people about the overall FSC consultation, members of the Hampshire Youth Forum (aged between 11 and 18) were invited to consider the proposals, including the withdrawal of Adults Health and Care Grants, and attend a discussion group to share their feedback. The comments and suggestions have been shared with the service for consideration

Please note as this was an open consultation the respondents were self-selecting so do not provide a representative sample of the total Hampshire population.

No demographics were captured about the individuals who provided unstructured responses to this proposal.

Levels of agreement with this proposal

There were very similar levels of responses on each of the grants (between 3,406 and 3,460). The Citizens Advice Infrastructure proposal received the highest level of overall disagreement (70%), followed by the CVS Infrastructure grant proposal (55%) and the Local Solutions Grant proposal (48%). The strength of feeling was also highest for the Citizens Advice Infrastructure Grant with 38% strongly disagreeing compared with 27% CVS Infrastructure and 22% Local solutions.

  1. CVS Infrastructure Grant – 55% respondents disagreed with the proposal, half of whom strongly disagreed. 29% agreed with the proposal, just over half of which strongly agreed. 16% were neutral
  2. Citizens Advice Infrastructure Grant – 70% respondents disagreed with the proposal, over half of whom strongly disagreed. 19% agreed with the proposal. 11% were neutral
  3. Local Solutions Grant – 48% respondents disagreed with the proposal of whom just under half disagreed strongly. 30% agreed with the proposal, with 21% neutral

What is driving disagreement with this proposal?

The disagreement across the three grant proposals were based on largely common impacts. Most individual responses focused on the eventual impact on vulnerable residents and there were many arguments from both individuals and organisations that the proposals affecting infrastructure support would weaken the resilience and effectiveness of a sector which is critical both to vulnerable residents and to ensuring an effective joint system of support and demand management.

The most frequent comments on the proposals relate to negative impacts. 746 comments in the response form mentioned potential impacts of the proposal to withdraw the three grant schemes. The most frequently mentioned impacts were that the proposal might:

  • jeopardise access to essential services for residents (mentioned in 59% of comments identifying impacts)
    • "As a volunteer at Citizens Advice I am aware of the number of clients that we have that rely on services such as ours. We live in a digital age but there are still a number of people who do not have either access to digital equipment or the ability to use the internet. These people rely on charitable services such as those you currently support, to ensure they are receiving the help they need. In turn the charities rely on the support of local, county and national councils and governments to contribute towards their costs." 
  • affect the most vulnerable groups (35%)
    • "This will have a devastating impact on the community, in particular the elderly and needy." 
  • lead to increased costs to public services in the long term (32%)
    • "The cost of withdrawing these should be considered in its entirety, as might actually cost more to reduce funding - shifts the burden elsewhere." 
  • affect essential support or resources which some VCSE organisations need to develop or operate effectively (20%)
    • "The outputs that the CVS delivers are essential to us….. This burden would fall back on to our District Council. The training they make available is very necessary eg GDPR, IT, trustees, safeguarding. They help us to get volunteers to carry out the work…they help us network with other charities and learn things from them that improve our effectiveness and fundraising…” 
  • result in discrimination (13%)
    • “The Council for Voluntary Services grant and Citizens Advice grant deliver a vital service for the low paid. those with mental and physical health conditions, students, and older persons. This is particularly the case for those having to deal with Housing issues and rental arrears and overcharging of housing rents by private landlords. Take this support away will have serious consequences for these members of our community…” 
  • further exacerbate pressures on the VCSE sector caused by cuts to public services (9%)
    • “I am aware of a number of pressures currently faced by HCC to provide adequate Adult Social Care. Adults in need of social care are increasingly reliant on the help from the voluntary and charity sector to support and help them. I am concerned that the combination of increased pressure from HCC Adult Services on the charity sector in combination with withdrawal of funding will make this essential work unsustainable - with significant and hugely detrimental impact on the most vulnerable people in our community”. 

For the respective proposals, certain groups of people disagreed with the proposed to withdraw the grants more than others:

  1. CVS Infrastructure Grant
    • Organisations were notably most likely to disagree than other groups (81% disagreement compared with 55% for all respondents) with a large majority strongly disagreeing
    • Individuals who reported their activities were limited a lot by health or a disability were notably more likely to disagree with this proposal (64% disagreement)
    • People living in households with income less than £20,000 were also notably more likely to disagree with the proposal (61% disagreement)
    • Respondents from Hart and Rushmoor were notably more likely to disagree than other groups (64% each compared with 55% for all respondents)
  2. Citizens Advice Infrastructure Grant
    Certain groups of people disagreed with the proposed to withdraw this grant more than others:
    • Organisations were notably more likely to disagree than other groups (84% disagreement compared with 70% for all respondents) with a large majority strongly disagreeing
    • Individuals who reported their activities were limited a lot by health or a disability were notably more likely to disagree with this proposal (77% disagreement)
    • Respondents from Hart and Rushmoor were notably more likely to disagree than other groups (78% and 82% respectively compared with 70% for all respondents)
  3. Local Solutions Grant
    Certain groups of people disagreed with the proposed to withdraw this grant more than others:
    • Organisations were notably most likely to disagree than other groups (77% disagreement compared with 48% for all respondents) with a large majority strongly disagreeing
    • Respondents under the age of 25 were notably more likely to disagree with this proposal (65% disagreement)

The unstructured responses by direct letter or email included both direct and indirect grant beneficiaries and stakeholders in local government and health services. These organisations were universally opposed to the proposals, recognising the potential impacts on public service demand, the importance of maintaining resilience of the sector and protecting high quality services for vulnerable residents. A number of comments also included constructive offers to collaborate to mitigate these impacts and make effective use of more limited joint resources. The arguments in stakeholder organisation responses also support the points received via response forms are exemplified by the following comments from Frimley NHS (Frimley Health and Care ICS):

“CVS Infrastructure - …There are existing current pressures on voluntary sector services and the sustainability of some local partner organisations are already at risk. Further reductions may result in a lack of provision for services and support for local organisations who, in turn, are supporting vulnerable residents, putting further strain on statutory services.
Citizens Advice Infrastructure - …Rushmoor has some of the highest rates in the country for older people’s income deprivation. Without training available for staff at Citizen’s Advice Rushmoor this puts the quality of advice and ability to support some of the most vulnerable residents at risk and, in turn, has an impact on their health and well-being. This includes risks of exacerbating experiences of fuel and food poverty and an increased risk of excess winter deaths. In Hart, 51% of support goes to clients who have a disability.
Local Solutions - Given the low value of the fund and the potential high impact including the use of volunteers in the community and additional joint work involved in delivering these projects, NHS Frimley and partners would discourage the fund from being withdrawn and encourage the use to be either pooled or joined with other funding streams such as Better Care Fund and any future NHS Frimley Innovation Funds to maximise the use of the funding and ensure an invest to save principle is applied to this funding involving voluntary and community organisations.” 

The comments from grant recipients specifically require careful consideration given some of the challenges on the assumptions and statements in the consultation information pack.

The Hampshire Youth Forum session also highlighted the following impacts:

  • need to avoid vulnerable groups falling into crisis and a cycle of people needing support
  • charities may struggle to fund themselves
  • cutting adult social care also impacts children such as children with elderly parents, disabled parents, parents with mental ill-health and parents on low income
  • parents issues may be passed on to children
  • children may struggle to access education or proper homes to live in

Impacts on defined characteristics

The further comments on the proposed withdrawal of these grants reveal concern specifically around the ability of vulnerable groups to access high quality services provided through organisations supported by the grants.

"Disabled people are isolated from society enough. You cannot take the few programs we have that allow us any joy in life." 

“I think this is short-sighted as in fact it will just increase social isolation for people who rely on charities to support them particularly for older people and those with disabilities including mental health. This will affect the poorest in society the most and will also increase the costs of social care overall so it won't actually save money”.

“Removing grants from programmes that really support the community will lead to people missing out on welfare that they are entitled to. CA supports those who need to claim benefits but can't for various reasons, losing this would put vulnerable people in hardship or worse”.

“The Council for Voluntary Services grant and Citizens Advice grant deliver a vital service for the low paid, those with mental and physical health conditions, students, and older persons. This is particularly the case for those having to deal with Housing issues and rental arrears and overcharging of housing rents by private landlords. Take this support away will have serious consequences for these members of our community….”.

When asked to identify whether their comments related to impacts on groups with specific characteristics, the main impacts were confirmed as:

  • disability (59%)
  • age (54%)
  • poverty (52%)

Other characteristics were mentioned at lower levels including:

  • Rurality
  • Race
  • Marriage and/or civil partnership
  • Pregnancy and/or maternity
  • Religion or belief
  • Sex
  • Sexual orientation
  • Environmental impact
  • Gender reassignment

What is driving agreement with this proposal?

A small number of comments received mentioned points which can be deemed as “accepting” or “supportive” of the proposals. The most frequently mentioned of these points were:

  • the proposal is acceptable if it isn’t a legal requirement
    • "Whilst I am sure these are valuable services if they are not required by law then it makes sense to stop them" 
  • alternative sources of funding are available
    • “With the exception of Citizen's Advice, which I class an essential service, organisations simply need to find other sources of income rather than from council taxpayers”. 
  • services need to be financially independent from the County Council
    • “I feel there are many ways that these orgs can support their own way and be more disciplined to use and manage their resources more wisely for themselves. The investment already made should now be sufficient for them to carry on e.g. training passed on internally, keep relationships ongoing etc….” 
  • alternative services are available
    • “Goodwill of voluntary services needs to be encouraged. I feel citizens advice & local solutions could be funded by local business charitable donations”. 

Across all three of the proposals, although still a minority overall:

  • Those living in rural areas were more likely to agree compared to those living in urban areas
  • Households with an income over £60,000 were more likely to agree compared to all other income bands
  • Respondents aged 25 to 44 years were more likely to agree compared to other age bands
  • Households with a child or young person under 19 years old were more likely to agree than respondents overall

Suggested alternatives to the proposal

188 of the further comments on the proposal to withdraw the three grant schemes offered suggestions for alternative approaches. These included:

  • prioritising grant funding to a specific area or service (mentioned in 27% of further suggestions)
    • “I disagree with the proposal to remove all funding from CVS, but their grant is very large, and I feel there will be scope for some reduction while maintaining the essential parts of this service. Support to Citizens Advice is vital, this is small grant that is very important to the organisation and must be maintained to enable them to continue their high-quality services to the community”. 
  • reviewing and reducing grants but not withdrawing them altogether (27%)
    • “Why all? Could you not reduce the grants the % total of the grants. The services offered to vulnerable elderly people that allow them to have some joy, social interaction, avoid loneliness must not be affected. These services are critical for mental health and wellbeing.” 
  • looking for savings internally (22%)
  • lobby Government for more funding (11%)
  • increase Council Tax (10%)
  • others (12%)

Some suggestions from the Hampshire Youth Forum session included:

  • Funding should be directed to smaller local charities than larger ones
  • At least one grant should be kept (the preference was for local solutions grant)