Archived decisions

Culture and Communities Select Committee

Review Panel for Hard to Reach People

Introductory Briefing Paper: first revision

Introduction

Following the Committee's decision to review the issues for the County Council regarding `hard to reach' groups, this briefing paper has been prepared to support Members in scoping this piece of work.

Preliminary discussions with officers have assisted in identifying areas of possible interest to the Review Panel and what kinds of recommendations might eventually be made.

What is meant by `hard to reach' groups?

The term `hard to reach' needs clarification. It is suggested here that it should mean more than just a local authority communicating information about its services to local people, but rather it should include the extent to which local people engage with the local authority through the use of services provided. `Hard to reach' should have something to do with meeting the real needs of individuals and communities regardless of whether residents can be classified on the basis of age, ethnicity, disability or sexual orientation. If the classification, and many people could be classified in more than one way, implies need that can reasonably be addressed by service provider agencies, then classification may be helpful, but `minority' classifications may obscure the real differences in need experienced within the group.

In theory, every household in Hampshire is reached by the County Council's Hampshire Now, but merely reaching households with a publication does not necessarily mean that the people of Hampshire have been reached in the sense implied by `hard to reach' if the expression includes a sense of `lack of connection' between an authority and its constituents. Neither is it particularly helpful to apply the term to the many `minority groups' or other classifications of people, as if to say that all members of such groups do not know of, or do not use services available to them.

It is proposed that people defined as `hard to reach' for the purposes of this review might include those who:

a. are unaware of services provided by HCC or its partners, or

b. are unable to take advantage of services provided by HCC or its partners, or

c. are reluctant to take advantage of services provided by HCC or its partners.

The Panel has been asked to consider, in particular, how Hampshire County Council ensures that people in rural areas and members of `minority' groups are `reached', and whether there is scope for recommendations to be made that would enable the County to fulfil its ambition to maximise their wellbeing and enhance their quality of place.

Characteristics of `hard to reach' people in rural areas

The Rural Profile (Socio-Economic Profile of Rural Hampshire, Spatial Strategy Group, July 2008) suggests that whilst it is generally true that rural areas are characterised by prosperity, nevertheless there are "individual households or persons in rural areas who may be suffering deprivation"... "This and other studies show hidden deprivation, not large numbers but scattered throughout rural areas" (Rural Profile p.4). If `hard to reach' implies a significant element of need, then the Rural Profile implies there may be people living in rural areas whose needs are not being met. Hard to reach, of course means more than just being deprived, but it includes those who are not known or reached by services, as well as those who may choose not to be known and reached by them.

The key word here is `hidden'. For whatever reasons these residents are not flagged by socio-demographic research, nor by the `system' and are therefore hidden or invisible as far as the relevant and appropriate services are concerned. These hidden people may be defined as `hard to reach' according to one or more of the criteria cited above. Discovering and attempting to ensure the relevant people are `reached' would appear to require innovative partnership-based solutions to keep costs within reason.

Characteristics of `hard to reach' people classified as `minority groups'

Many different characteristics have been used to describe a person as belonging to a `minority group'. Whilst the characteristic used may describe one thing that one individual has in common with others, it does not necessarily mean that all those who share those characteristics are `hard to reach'. Typical lists (eg. Community Consultation and the `Hard to Reach': concepts and practice in Victorian local government, 2005, Who is hard to reach and why? ISR Working Paper, Nicola Brackertz, 2007) of minority groups include, for example, the:

· Young people,

· Older people,

· Disabled people,

· Minority ethnic groups,

· Homeless people,

· Migrant workers,

· Carers

· Gay/Lesbian/Transgender

· Traveller/Gypsy communities

· ...and many others.

Many, or perhaps most members of these groups may know of the services available to them, and they may use those services. There may be some services, however, that certain minority groups tend not to use for specific reasons. Therefore, in certain circumstances, some minority residents could be defined as `hard to reach' on the basis of the criteria above.

Some comment that `hard to reach' is a euphemism for `overlooked'. The working definition would appear to accommodate that if `overlooked' has the sense of being unable or unwilling to access services. It does, however imply an onus on service providers to `look for' those who may be missing out.

If people share a specific characteristic that is relevant to their being `hard to reach' it suggests that it may be possible to target appropriate resources to ensure they have equitable access to services. For example, a hearing loop might be provided in locations where people with hearing loss need to hear information or interact in meetings. In another case it might be possible to provide support funding to a community organisation to provide personal social care for elderly members of a minority cultural/religious group.

Many minority hard to reach groups are represented by associations or organisations in the `third sector'. The raison d'etre for the organisations' existence is usually the characteristic that defines the group. In many cases such minorities are `reached' by the organisations and will often have specialists who are knowledgeable about services provided by statutory and independent agencies and how they can be accessed. The County Council and other statutory bodies are often able to work through such organisations.

However, not all members of minority groups belong to, or will be known by organisations relevant to the minority group, and may be unknown to relevant service provider organisations. Many minority individuals or households will be spread throughout rural or urban populations and some of these may be defined as `hard to reach' on the basis of the criteria suggested above. Again, these people are `invisible' to service providers if the organisations are unaware of their existence.

Aggregations of `hard to reach' people on the basis of locality

In areas of multiple deprivation and in some urban communities there are concentrations of people who are often referred to as `hard to reach'. Some residents fit into socio-demographic profiles (areas of multiple deprivation contain possibly more than a dozen social types as defined by Mosaic); other (or even some of the same) residents may belong to standard minority groups or types. However this briefing suggests that they are hard to reach only if they do not know of services available to them, or they do not access services which would contribute to their wellbeing. Wellbeing, however, is an important issue since `maximising wellbeing' is one of the County's corporate priorities, but there is a question as to whether a local understanding of `wellbeing' necessarily matches with that assumed by the County or others not part of that community. `Wellbeing' may need a local definition negotiated between communities and those with the resources to help.

The people in these groups are not `hidden' in that the context and scope for improving wellbeing in areas of deprivation is known, even if the distinctions between groups may be difficult to recognise or focus resources on. One advantage, from the perspective of targeting measures to `reach' and include these people is that in most cases attempts to reach them may be more cost effective because there tend to be aggregations or concentrations of groups in specific geographical areas.

Hard to Reach groups and the County Council's Corporate Priorities

The County's Corporate Priorities of maximising wellbeing and enhancing quality of place are aspirations for all of the County's residents, however those who might be called `hard to reach' as defined above, are the least likely to benefit from the County Council's commitment to its people. The working definition of `hard to reach' suggested above, proposes that there may be three broad components that as well as indicating why some people are hard to reach, also indicate where or how resources could be targeted to improve the situation.

Whilst this briefing's main focus is not on issues of diversity, equality of access to all individuals is one of relevance to the equality and diversity work of the County Council and its partner organisations.

Hampshire County Council published its first equality strategy, `Quality Through Equality' in April 2000. Since then, the legal framework has developed and duties have been placed on public bodies to promote equality, and it covers discrimination on grounds of race, disability, gender, age, faith and sexual orientation, sometimes known as the six equality strands.

The Council produced the Race Equality Scheme in 2003 (reviewed in 2006) and has, in conjunction with statutory and 3^rd sector partners, been developing or supporting work with minority groups, such as: Gypsies and Travellers; migrant workers and people with disabilities. Other initiatives initiated by the County include the creation of the Older People's Wellbeing Team that has begun to develop more older person's activities in community venues, designed for the body and the mind. The Council was among the first to embrace the Civil Partnership laws, and has created the Hampshire Interfaith Network which may achieve independence from the Council as the membership grows and develops.

There is a clear point of contact between the work undertaken in equality and diversity since some members of minority groups can be over-represented in relation to the wider community, amongst people who are `hard to reach'. In Hampshire, non-white ethnic groups make up about 2.2% of the population, as opposed to 9.1% in England as a whole (2001 census in `The Hampshire Joint Strategic Needs Assessment, October 2008). On the basis of the census figures concentrations of `non-white ethnic groups' exist, for example, in Rushmoor, and Basingstoke and Deane districts but even these percentages are relatively small compared to England average. The numbers are sufficient, however to suggest that particular attention to communication about services may be necessary, and that focused support may be necessary to overcome barriers to the use of some services.

Definition: part a) People who are unaware of services provided by HCC or its partners

Current County Council activity: Corporate Communications

Corporate Communications distributes copies of Hampshire Now (HN) to all Hampshire households four times a year. Each copy contains an A to Z of contact numbers for County Council departments and services. It also contains numbers for district council offices. If this publication does not reach every person (information provided by Corporate Communications), it potentially reaches most, but questions could be asked to test how effective this means of reaching people is, such as:

· Does HN reach all of the households it is intended for?

· If it does not, who does it `reach' and which age bands or groups does it not?

· How is successful distribution monitored?

· Does every person in a household read HN?

· What is the target audience in terms of age, sex and background - and what provision is made for the blind or those with other language needs?

· How is readership monitored?

· Assuming some age bands and backgrounds are not interested, what alternative approaches are used to `reach' these people?

· Do the contact numbers provided actually meet the needs of all Hampshire residents?

· Is the A_Z of services list comprehensive enough? and

· Do readers know from the A-Z of services list who they actually need to speak to?

Groups such as the homeless, migrant workers and some travellers and gypsies may not have stable addresses, and not receive copies of HN. In addition to these questions there may be barriers to the effectiveness of written publications, such as where people have visual impairment, learning disability, poor literacy or English language skills. (The Moser report 1999, notes the strong connection between poor literacy and numeracy skills and low income, "Both literacy and numeracy have a profound effect on earnings")

By taking the perspective of a single local authority or agency to providing residents with information, it is possible that the perspectives of residents are forgotten. Residents may not know what layer or agency of government provides specific local services. It would seem better for information about services to contain clear contact details for all county, district and parish provided services, and probably all locally provided central government services too. In the spirit of partnership it should also be possible to add NHS and all third sector service providers in order to complete the range of resources available to the people who might need them. People should not have to understand the complex web of service provision and who provides what, in order to access relevant sources of help when they need it.

Current County Council activity: Departmental initiatives

Most departments employ one or more equalities leads who have a role in explaining (usually to ethnic minority groups) the role of Hampshire County Council and how its services may be accessed. They are also able to feed back to departments any issues that affect access to services.

Developing networks of relationships can be time consuming, and local initiatives also take time to take forward. Potential questions that could be asked about this more personal approach to `reaching' people might include:

· How many equalities leads does each department have?

· What groups or communities tend to be targeted by leads?

· What groups tend not to be targeted?

· What priorities are set, given the wide distribution of groups across the county?

· What are the limitations of departmental leads in terms of the proportion of members of different groups that can be reached in this way?

· What strategies are used to communicate with groups who may not be as well served by HN as the general population, because of language or cultural barriers?

· How is the work or success of departmental leads communicated to the `centre' in terms of who is being influenced and what is being achieved?

· Who consolidates this work to present an overall picture of the whole?

In many publications the term `minority groups' includes older people and young people. It could be disputed whether these are really minorities, but the CC and other agencies specifically target resources and services for these groups. The issue is which people are nevertheless still `hard to reach' according to the working definition adopted in this briefing paper.

Definition: part b) People who are unable to take advantage of services provided by HCC or its partners

Geography plays a significant part in how well people are likely to be served by HCC and other service providers. The major distinction appears to be between rural and urban areas where the challenges differ considerably.

Rural areas

Rural areas are, almost by definition, characterised by small numbers or clusters of households distributed across otherwise relatively sparsely populated areas. The Socio-Economic Profile draws attention to some of the key characteristics that can contribute to some people in rural communities being `hard to reach', not just by the County Council but by any providers of services in those areas.

The people who are unable to take advantage of services may be unable to do so because:

· The services are not provided at all in the locality

· The services are not accessible by public transport

Or

· The services are provided, but infrequently, or not to the same level as those provided in most urban areas

Limitations to service delivery in rural areas are normally due to affordability. The Secta: partners for change report, `Review of Evidence on Additional Costs of Delivering Services to Rural Communities' (2004) concludes that there are "...three potential reasons why the cost of delivering services per capita of needs-weighted population may vary between urban and rural areas..." The report states:

· Mileage costs

· Time-related costs, and

· Economies of scale tend to be lower

Reducing the additional mileage and time-related costs, and improving the economies of scale do, and will require innovative thinking, exploiting opportunities for creative and efficient partnership working, such as reducing the number of separate visits from partner organisations or even individual services within single organisations. The Rural Delivery Task Group Report - Supporting Hampshire's Rural Communities, 2008, contemplates possible responses such as developing service centres and local hubs which may help reduce the degree of isolation from services for some rural residents.

In a paper provided to Cabinet, `Outline Framework for a Rural Delivery Strategy (2008)' it also recognised the above concerns when it noted that, "...The socio-economic profile and appendices to this report touch on what these differences might be (such as the dispersed nature of deprivation in rural areas, isolation, poor accessibility, higher costs in service delivery, older age structure, problems in recruiting staff and in the importance of voluntary networks)". However, the Socio-economic Profile of Rural Hampshire (2008) presents rural Hampshire as in the 20%`least deprived' in six out of the seven domain indices of deprivation. Despite that, it is likely that a proportion of older people will be income poor and will struggle to access some services; the paper estimates over 50,000 people may be affected.

None of these observations is new, but `business as usual' cannot be an option if the hard to reach in rural communities are to receive more equitable access to HCC and partner-provided services that are appropriate to their needs. One of the important issues is the invisibility of those who need the services that they are currently not accessing. As the Hampshire profile document suggests, "...The general perception of rural Hampshire is that of prosperity..." and it goes on to say that in general it may be true. However the Commission for Rural Communities (The housing and support needs of older people in rural areas, Commission for Rural Communities, 2004) identified that ... "Many older homeowners are asset rich but income poor". Such households can blend into the affluent landscape which may effectively mask their real needs. Further information/research is required to identify who the hidden `hard to reach' people are in rural communities, and where they are.

Potential questions might include:

· Is it possible to identify all `hidden' potential users of services in rural areas?

· Is there potential to share relevant information between provider organisations if permitted by recipients?

· Do all potential service recipients want to be identified?

· What potential exists, for example, to establish volunteer (?) local residents to watch out for the vulnerable in the community?

· What minimum activities ought to be carried out in order to best identify the level of need in rural areas?

· What minimum activities ought to be carried out in order to best establish which people or households are most in need of which services?

Additional questions must exist around what responsibility, if any, local authorities, the NHS or other service providers have to proactively seek out those who might need their services? To locate all potential services users in a large county creates a major challenge, however because people's circumstances and health can change very quickly, usually in one direction, innovative solutions will be needed to address what is going to be an always moving target.

Urban areas

People in urban areas who are unable to access services provided by the County Council or its partners, may not access services for various reasons, such as:

· The service sought may not be available when needed

· The resident may be housebound, have a disability, or have caring responsibilities that prevent access to a service

· The resident may not be entitled to a service, or the resident may think he/she is not entitled to it

· The resident may have religious, cultural and/or language related reasons for not accessing services

· The resident may feel pressured by his/her community or significant others not to access the service

(note that the above reasons for people being unable to access services, of course apply also in rural areas, but they probably apply to greater numbers of people in urban areas)

Services not available when needed

Residents may find it difficult to access some services if they are not accessible at times when the person can use them, or needs to use them. Examples of this could be library or GP surgery opening times, both of which have recently begun to extend their hours in some areas.

Access to services in urban areas tends to be better than in rural areas, although some `out-of-hours' health services, for example, are not consistently available in all urban areas.

Natural conditions that prevent use of services

The reasons for not being able to access services are assumed in this case to be things that prevent residents accessing them. People from a number of minority groups may have access to an association or organisation that could represent them, either finding a way to achieve the desired outcome, or a way to lobby for better access, for example, Age Concern, or the Royal National Institute for the Blind.

Not qualifying for services

Some people, including the homeless, may not meet criteria that would entitle them to a service. The lack of an address would be a typical example for homeless people, but many services are provided on the basis of eligibility criteria. Other services may be free, but still require an address or complex paperwork to be completed. The latter may put off some residents. In areas of deprivation higher levels of illiteracy may disadvantage people who might otherwise use needed services by making it more difficult for people to understand literature and negotiate complex, demanding forms.

Cultural, religious and/or language-related restrictions

Ethnic minorities, on cultural or religious grounds may find it all but impossible to use personal social care services and some health services unless alternatives can be found. In some places the 3^rd sector is able to provide alternative solutions, sometimes with grant support.

The role of community support workers and equalities leads in local authority and health organisations tend to work primarily in urban contexts where the higher numbers of non-service using residents justify the allocation of such resources to improve access possibilities for such groups, even though the above reasons can be relevant to urban and rural areas.

3^rd sector voluntary organisations representing those with specific difficulties of access are important partners in helping statutory authorities to achieve their commitments to their public.

Disadvantaged or deprived people in rural locations, "...do not show up as living in a deprived area..." whilst, "The small concentrations of deprivation in Hampshire... occur entirely within urban areas." (Hampshire Profile) Because there are often different reasons for people not using services in rural and urban areas, not least because of the rural sparse, dispersed households and logistics of service delivery, and the urban concentrations of deprivation, it suggests that appropriate solutions will be distinctively different. Both, however, will require more effective and intelligent holistic initiatives to be developed with partner agencies and real engagement of people in those communities.

Potential questions that could be asked include:

· What services may not be available when people want to access them - what evidence exists, or would need to be provided to test this?

· How many and what residents, where, may be prevented from using services by their own `natural conditions' such as ethnic origin or disability?

· How could evidence for the above be produced, if it is not already?

· What evidence exists that would indicate how many people in Hampshire may not meet criteria that would entitle them to a service that they need or could benefit from - and how many people could this affect?

· What types of cultural/religious/language-related grounds may be a barrier to the use of services and which communities (and how many people) are affected?

· How many people in areas of deprivation might be defined as `hard to reach' (as defined in this briefing note)?

Transition from a public service culture of standard, one size fits all, to the delivery of services to one that puts `choice' and `customer service' as priorities, and at the same time recognises the practical necessity of targeting resources and targeting where need is greatest, is key to achieving HCC's corporate priorities. It will also be important to discover what prevents people from gaining access to services that would increase their experience of wellbeing. Preventing the reasonable access to services by criteria designed to prevent abuse of them (such as the requirement to fill out complex forms) could deny people's wellbeing or quality of place.

Definition: part c) People who are reluctant to take advantage of services provided by HCC or its partners

By suggesting that some `hard to reach' people are reluctant to take advantage of services, it implies that some residents may exercise a personal choice, possibly because accessing a service may:

· In some way bring negative consequences (such as means assessment and the potential loss of a home?)

· Decrease a person's sense of self worth (such as where offered educational opportunities may be perceived as reinforcing a person's feeling of lack of ability)

· Challenge community values/norms

Negative consequences

There is reason to think that some `hard to reach' people may resist services if they believe they may be worse off by accessing them. Various pieces of research indicate the negative reactions by older people to the consequences of `means testing' when considering residential care, "...The idea of being forced to sell their home to pay for care caused great distress amongst some people. This was partly because they had hoped to leave it to their children as their largest financial resource. For many it also represented an asset which they had worked hard to achieve..." (Meeting the cost of continuing care: public views and perceptions, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 1996).

Fear of their finances becoming known to the `system' may be a disincentive for people to access services for which they have to be means tested. Other older people sometime profess a reluctance to accept what they believe is charity, particularly when they have fiercely demonstrated their self sufficiency in life.

Sense of self worth

Some services provided by HCC or its partners that deliver community services, may be perceived as an opportunity by some residents to reveal their existing lack of skills or abilities rather than an opportunity to develop skills. Reading programmes or other programmes to improve skills or qualifications may be viewed by some people with fear or concern that they might fail or drop out if their past educational experiences have not been positive. The gap between where they are and where they might like to be, may seem too wide a chasm. Reinforcing negative experience and low self esteem (as measured against wider society) may seem a real risk.

For those in areas of multiple deprivation, and particularly where generations tend to repeat the experience of past generations, the measures of success or good self worth within those communities may have become distinctively different from people in the larger community.

Community values or norms

Communities are in part defined by their common values or norms. If services provided by HCC or partners in community provision do not reflect local values, or seem to be at variance from them, pressure, direct or indirect, may be exerted by the community on those who otherwise might wish to take advantage of services. In deprived communities, for example, literacy and numeracy levels are likely to be low and health poor (and these things are not unconnected). Smoking cessation and healthy eating services provided in communities appear to be consistently resisted. There may be a number of reasons that contribute to the slow progress of public health campaigns, but it is feasible that core aspects of local culture, poor education, or peer pressure may influence local choice and take up of available services.

Potential questions that could be asked:

· If some households/residents are afraid of the negative consequences if they consider accessing HCC or other available services, should the CC, possibly with other services providers consider alternative options to address this issue?

· How many people, and for which services might negative consequences be an issue?

· What local research or engagement has been, or might be undertaken to test the extent, or not, of whether a sense of self worth is an issue in accessing services?

· What alternative approaches to encouraging people to access services and health programmes are being trialled where local values or norms have not supported such intervention?

· How much do public health and other initiatives rely on written documents that are too difficult to communicate or understand by many in the community?

All assumptions about who are not accessing either HCC services or those provided by other service providers should be tested. It is also important to get to the bottom of why some households or individuals either do not, or feel unable to access them. It seems clear that achieving the priorities of individual organisations, is likely to be dependent upon good, effective, partnership approaches and not on each organisation working solo.

Summary

This briefing provides a simple, practical definition of what `hard to reach' might mean for the County Council and others providing services to the people of Hampshire. Hard to reach is defined as people who:

a. are unaware of services provided by HCC or its partners, or

b. are unable to take advantage of services provided by HCC or its partners, or

c. are reluctant to take advantage of services provided by HCC or its partners.

The criteria are practical, but any assumptions would need to be tested against evidence, or by acquiring appropriate evidence.

Each section of the paper concludes with a set of possible questions that could be asked of departments, or partner stakeholders who deliver services to Hampshire residents.

The top level analysis that underlies this briefing suggests that the challenges to improve access to services in rural areas are fundamentally different to those in urban areas, requiring different strategies.

The rural issues appear to be predominantly about how to deliver a high level of service to relatively small communities spread across the county - efficiently and effectively (ie. organisational efficiency). In addition little information is known about the `hidden' hard to reach people in those areas - either who they are, or where they are.

The hard to reach in urban areas, by contrast tend to be characterised primarily by concentrations of deprivation, or else could be hidden within the general community. Whilst availability of services in urban areas is greater than in rural areas, there are still, nevertheless, many invisible people who do not access services that they might benefit from. Some urban challenges appear to suggest that culturally or locally sensitive longer term solutions are required that mean working with the communities to jointly find sustainable visions of wellbeing to which all stakeholders can commit themselves.

It is suggested that some, particularly older people, may resist accessing services if they fear the potential consequences of means testing. Others too, may have reasons for not wanting to access services provided by HCC or other organisations.

It is difficult to get a clear picture either of the extent of the challenges of `hard to reach' in rural or urban areas, or of where and what work is being done or planned across the county. No means appears to exist to consolidate this kind of information within HCC, but especially in this era of greater partnership working it would make far more sense to map all that is known of these issues for all statutory and 3<sup>rd</sup> sector partners across Hampshire. It is recognised that research tools such as Mosaic are used by some departments, but even with the demographic insights provided, discovering `hidden' hard to reach people, particularly in rural areas would require greater granularity than such systems can provide.

The `hidden' residents in rural and urban areas, are just that, they are unknown to services providers. Furthermore there is an element of the problem being driven from a statistical assumption that these hidden people exist. They may exist and be in real need, but as the set of possible solutions increases, the possibility of tailoring or personalising services to meet individuals' needs may include increased use of locally developed responses designed to work in specific contexts. Communities in urban and rural areas need to be empowered and supported to help provide their own solutions where statutory or other provision requires complementing.

Documents referred to include:

· Social-Economic Profile of Rural Hampshire, Spatial Strategy Group, July 2008

· Community Consultation and the `Hard to Reach': concepts and practice in Victorian local government, 2005,

· Who is hard to reach and why? ISR Working Paper, 2007, Nicola Brackertz

· Review of Evidence on Additional Costs of Delivering Services to Rural Communities', Secta, 2004

· Rural Delivery Task Group Report - Supporting Hampshire's Rural Communities

· The housing and support needs of older people in rural areas, Commission for Rural Communities, 2004

· Meeting the cost of continuing care: public views and perceptions, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 1996

Other documents consulted include:

· Diversity Network Project: Basingstoke and Deane, Community Action Hampshire, Frances Candler, 2007

· Diversity Network Project: East Hampshire, Community Action Hampshire, Frances Candler, 2007

· Diversity Network Project: Fareham, Community Action Hampshire, Frances Candler, 2008

· Diversity Network Project: Gosport, Community Action Hampshire, Frances Candler, 2007

· Diversity Network Project: Hart, Community Action Hampshire, Frances Candler, 2007

· Diversity Network Project: Havant, Community Action Hampshire, Frances Candler, 2007

· Diversity Network Project: New Forest, Community Action Hampshire, Frances Candler, 2008

· Diversity Network Project: Rushmoor, Community Action Hampshire, Frances Candler, 2008

· Diversity Network Project: Test Valley, Community Action Hampshire, Frances Candler, 2007

· Diversity Network Project: Winchester, Community Action Hampshire, Frances Candler, 2008

· Infrastructure Report BME Groups: Rushmoor, Amjid Jabbar, 2006

· Local Faith Groups: Basingstoke and Deane, Ann Cahill, 2006

· Infrastructure Report, Gypsies and Travellers in Hampshire, 2006

· Infrastructure Report, Refugees in Hampshire, Martin de la Haye, 2006

· Winchester black and minority ethnic engagement project, 2^nd report, 2006

· Asian minorities in Hampshire, from 2001 census, 2007

· Record of Performance for Adult Social Care 2005-6, CSCI (included LD and mental health social care)

· Report on the Nature and Needs of Migrant Workers in Hampshire, Hampshire Strategic Partnership, Jane Goodwin, 2007

· One-stop community information shop - Andover, Press release 2007

· Identifying and locating asset rich, income poor older people in Hampshire, Environment Dept, Gareth Henry, 2007

· Identifying and locating asset rich, income poor older people in Hampshire using geo-demographics: technical report, Environment Dept, Gareth Henry, 2007

· Attitudes and aspirations of older people: a qualitative study, Dept of Work and Pensions, Research Report No 102, Hayden, Boaz and Taylor, 2000?)

Appendices

Several documents have been appended as background resources for this briefing. Each appendix is representative of information that is available to members or officers who want to better understand the issues that need to be grasped if the County Council intends to develop approaches to reach those who are defined in this paper as currently `hard to reach'.