Appendix 4: Consultation results report

East Sussex Floating Support Service

About this consultation

This consultation is about the proposal to reduce the funding for the East Sussex Floating Support Service. It started on 3 October and closed on 28 November 2024.

Taking part in the consultation

The consultation survey was available to complete online and people could download a printable version. Emails, letters and feedback in phone calls were also accepted.  

All of the consultations were promoted in our newsletters for residents, providers and staff. We also shared news stories with partners in the Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) sectors, to include in their newsletters for residents, organisations and staff.

General posters were shared with library teams and each affected service had a dedicated poster to put up in their service or building. Letters and emails were sent to people currently accessing the service and people who had used it in the last year. We also held consultation meetings in each area of the county.

The consultations were widely promoted in the local media and consultation leads talked about the proposals at relevant stakeholder meetings.

Who took part in the consultation

We received 1,425 responses to this consultation. The table below shows the different ways in which people took part. We also had 8 late survey responses received after the consultation closed.

Respondent method

Total

Survey

1355

Emails

17

Consultation meetings (attendees)

53

A general petition opposing the funding gap proposals was submitted by Lewes Liberal Democrats. It was signed by 100 people.

People were given the option of answering ‘about you’ equality questions in the survey, with 74% of respondents choosing to do so.

·         Over half of respondents (53%) were someone who uses or has used the service, followed by someone who works in health and social care (16%).

·         We heard from all age ranges, with the top group being over 65 (22%) and 45-54 (15%).

·         Just under half were female (48%), while males accounted for 24% of known gender for respondents.

·         Respondents were from all areas of East Sussex, with the top areas being Eastbourne, Hastings and Wealden (14%, 13% and 12% respectively).

Key messages

These key messages reflect the feedback received from organisations, groups and individuals across surveys, meetings and other feedback such as emails.

·         The majority of people and organisations strongly disagree with the proposal to reduce funding for the East Sussex Floating Support Service, with some viewing the proposal as shameful and immoral.

·         The service is immensely valued and seen as a vital lifeline for the most vulnerable in East Sussex. It’s very responsive and has much shorter waiting times than other services.

·         People said that cutting the service would target the most vulnerable and they are concerned that the reduction in funding would mean the service couldn’t run effectively.

·         People said that at a time when they’ve been heading into crisis, with no understanding of the options available to them or how to get the support they need to survive, the service has given them reassurance, genuine person-centred support, and helped to navigate the labyrinth of housing or social care systems.

·         Many people praised the service and the outcomes it helps people to achieve. They were also highly complimentary about the staff, expressing how compassionate, understanding and helpful they are.

·         A large proportion of respondents explained there is no other service like this that can provide the same level of personalised and flexible support. Many said they wouldn’t have known where else to go if this service hadn’t been available.  

·         People particularly value the fact the service offers home visits and face-to-face support for those who would otherwise not be able to access the remote support provision from other organisations.

·         People shared how the service provides a wide range of critical support, from general advice on housing, benefits or finance, to filling in detailed applications/forms, and obtaining accommodation, as well as liaising with and accessing the right support from other organisations.

·         People who have used the service say the areas which made the most difference to helping them live independently were help to better manage their mental health and emotional wellbeing, and help to find new accommodation.

·         It’s felt that the knock-on effects of reducing the service would be far reaching, impacting people’s ability to access the support they are entitled to. This would result in people losing out on funding they are entitled to, and being stuck in unsuitable accommodation, becoming homeless, or at risk of dying.

·         Professionals in other organisations expressed how knowledgeable and skilled the staff are, and said that they heavily rely on referring people to them for support.

·         Without the service, frontline staff in other organisations say they would not be able to fill the gap in support, or have the skills and knowledge to replicate it, meaning people’s needs would go unmet.

·         Both people who use the service and staff in other organisations said they would not be able to cope without the important role the service plays in the housing system.

·         People said that prevention work would be compromised by this proposal, as people’s support needs would increase without support. This would push them and their families into crisis and could lead to more people becoming homeless.

·         People said the size of the cut would be too great and cause greater demand on services from the NHS, charities, housing organisations, social care and local councils. Moreover, this increase in demand would be more expensive than the cost of maintaining the current budget for the service.

·         The top suggestion was not to cut the budget and keep funding the service as it currently stands.

·         Some people said it should get more funding or that the amount cut should be reduced, while people also said it would be important to ensure there is still accessible support for the most vulnerable.

Sample quotes

These comments are a small selection of the responses we received in the consultation. They reflect the key themes or offer a specific suggestion.

Organisation comments:

·         Wealden Citizens Advice: “Floating Support Services remain an important part of the support that we can offer to our clients. The fact that they can support clients with home visits and build that relationship is very important as many of the clients we support have long-term illness, suffer with mental health and/or disability. If we are unable to refer to them there would be a huge gap.”

·         Hastings Borough Council: “We made over 200 referrals in the last 12 months, so it is a service we make considerable use of to prevent homelessness. As a very rough measure it costs us an average of £15,800 per annum to accommodate a household in private TA [temporary accommodation] – so if those 200 households didn’t have their homelessness prevented it would cost us over £3m a year in TA costs.”

·         BHT Sussex (provider): “Our response concerns the scale and resulting impact of this cut, reducing the contract by £4million, constituting a service reduction of 88.5%. A cut of less severity would retain a service that could perform its key role as an integral part of provision across East Sussex”.

·         Care for Carers: “These services are vital for carers at risk of homelessness and are a key support for us in enabling some of the carers with the most complex caring roles to continue caring.”

·         East Sussex Children’s Services: “We know that housing instability can negatively impact a child’s health, development and school performance and often compounds trauma that they are going through or have experienced. East Sussex Floating Support Service provides a valuable service which complements and strengthens the statutory work of our case management teams in supporting children and families to remain in, manage or access safe and suitable housing.”

·         Eastbourne Borough Council: “The work of BHT in delivering floating support is a critical component to the countywide approach to homelessness prevention. We note that an 88% reduction to this service is proposed, which would fundamentally challenge the gains we have made in reducing homelessness and placements into emergency accommodation. This, in turn, would place further pressures on districts and boroughs in terms of unaffordable and unavoidable costs.”

·         Heads of Housing in East Sussex Authorities: “The Housing-related Floating Support Service is an integral part of local provision and meeting statutory duties in relation to homelessness prevention. Due to the high demand for homelessness services, there will not be capacity for local housing authorities to continue these interventions. Reducing these services will result in increased demand for statutory homelessness and care services, and a further rise in the number of people living in temporary accommodation and the length of time before people can secure move-on accommodation.”

·         Rother District Council: “The impact of these proposals is on some of our most vulnerable residents and on the financial position of Rother District Council. The concerns relate both to the degree of budget reduction to the ESFSS and Pathways scheme [separate service] as well as the timeframe in which it is proposed that these budget reductions are made.”

Individual comments:

·         “I find this proposal to cut funding morally reprehensible. When there’s a tough decision to be made it’s always the vulnerable and the poor who get hit the hardest. Often dealing with council paperwork is bewildering and having help in getting what one is entitled to is invaluable.”

·         “In my experience this wonderful service is vital. They literally saved my life. I think one shouldn't underestimate the importance of their work for people in crisis, like I was. I could not have managed to survive without their expert help and patient advice and support.”

·         “The Floating Support Service has been a lifeline for us during extremely challenging times. They provided essential support and guidance when we needed it most, helping us navigate difficult situations and access resources that improved our quality of life.”

·         “There is no other service where a client would be contacted within 24 hours of starting the service and had a support session either over the telephone or face to face within a week of that contact.”

·         “This service is pivotal to East Sussex as it provides a home visiting service to vulnerable clients in order to prevent homelessness. Many clients do not have access to the internet, especially the elderly, and being able to visit them at home to support them with important paperwork and access the benefits system ensures inclusion, income maximisation and tenancy sustainment.”

·         “We would never have managed the housing forms without the support of the support worker.”

·         “They also helped us to fill in very difficult forms to claim what otherwise we may not be able to do by ourselves.”

·         “ASC require the support of the specialist teams such as the East Sussex Floating Support Service to be able to offer a comprehensive and knowledgeable service to our clients. Adult Social Care CANNOT [emphasis in original] take on this role as well; we are overrun and running on empty as it is.”

·         “Everyone I knew who worked for the service was kind, caring, knowledgeable and just wanted to help people.”

·         “Many clients will no longer have bespoke, knowledgeable support with their housing and/or financial needs ,which in turn is likely to increase the disadvantages they are already facing.”

·         “88.5% might as well be 100%. It won't be indistinguishable. And if anyone thinks that these are 'savings', just wait and see what time bombs you've just set off.”

·         “If it was 88% cut you may as well say it is a closed service as the wait list will be enormous.”

·         “The proposed cut in funding is far too large! It seems to us that if this goes ahead you may as well do away with this service.”

·         “I couldn't have coped if I did not have the support of BHT.”

·         “Without this service I do not know what we would have done!”

·         “The Floating Support Service brings badly needed professional help that just isn't available elsewhere.”

·         “BHT is essential to keeping the homeless alive and feeling supported. I cannot express adequately how much BHT has helped me and continue to do so. I would probably be dead to be totally honest without the support and guidance from BHT and them fighting and working for my safety.”

·         “Service works with children as well as parents. Feedback from a ten year old (via staff member as she is at school) [who] was sofa surfing then in temporary accommodation with her mum. Now they have their own accommodation and she has her own bedroom. Mum has been supported into work and is much happier. This has all made her life much better.”

Results summary across all methods

Views on the proposal

Survey: 92% of respondents disagree with the proposal to reduce the funding for the East Sussex Floating Support Service. The majority chose strongly disagree over disagree (83% compared to 9%). A small portion of people (4%) agreed with the proposal.

The top 10 themes for why people agree or disagree with the proposal are:

1)    Service: Service is vital/needed  (582 comments)

2)    Service: Praise of service and its benefit (316)

3)    Views: Cuts target vulnerable people (266)

4)    Impact: Couldn't cope without service (189)

5)    Impact: Increased pressure on other services (149)

6)    Comment about personal circumstances (125)

7)    Views: Cuts too big for service to run effectively (117)

8)    Impact: Poor/no access to support (115)

9)    Service: Immensely valued (115)

10) Views: Worry about where people will get support instead (112)

Emails etc: The most common views were that organisations recognised the need to make saving (10 comments), that the cuts target the most vulnerable (9 comments) and that they will add more cost in the long term (9 comments).

Other common themes are:

·         Views: Equivalent services not available (7 comments)

·         Views: Already housing crisis in East Sussex (6)

·         Views: Other services already struggling (6)

·         Views: Will shift cost onto district and boroughs (6)

·         Views: Detrimental to disabled people in particular (5)

·         Views: Detrimental to people with mental illness in particular (5)

·         Views: Disagree (5)

·         Views: Need for this service is increasing (5)

Meetings: Where people expressed an opinion they said they disagree with the proposal. People highly value the service and feel it is sad and unfair that the budget could be reduced by so much. They are concerned about their support and where people would go in future for help, as they would have been lost without the service.

The Council needs to remember its duty of care. This service offers a level of support and understanding that isn’t available from statutory services, while the staff bring in huge amounts of funding into the area through helping people to claim benefits.  

Lots of people praised the service and how it has helped them. It was described as magnificent, amazing, and invaluable. Lots of people also talked about how amazing the staff are and how the support they provide is tailored to them. The staff advocate for people and champion their cause when other services won’t listen.

The service helps people to navigate the system, ensuring they can access the benefits and support they are entitled to. People talked about their struggles dealing with housing services, private landlords and the police, and how those services don’t care or listen, whereas this service does.

The service is really responsive and has much shorter waiting times than other services. The fact that it offers in-person support at home is critical, particularly for those who aren’t online or who struggle to talk on the phone.

The service has supported people with advice and advocacy to access financial support, maximising benefits, accessing care, housing and courses, getting ID, opening bank accounts, securing Blue Badges and appealing negative decisions from statutory agencies.

It has also helped people to move from unsafe and unsuitable accommodation to something better. This has helped people to improve their life by finding work and having their children live with them.  

Potential impacts of the proposal

Survey: 1,206 people answered this question and the top 10 themes are:

1)    Impact: Poor/no access to support (261 comments)

2)    Impact: Couldn't cope without service (168)

3)    Impact: People won’t get the support they need (157)

4)    Views: Worry about where people will get support instead (140)

5)    Impact: Negative impact (unspecified)  (131)

6)    Impact: Homelessness (128)

7)    Impact: Poorer mental health (122)

8)    Comment about personal circumstances (121)

9)    Views: Cuts target vulnerable people (113)

10) Service: Service is vital/needed  (103)

Emails etc: The most common impacts raised were about increased pressure on other services (13 comments), the increased cost for other organisations (10 comments), and people becoming homeless (8 comments).

Other common impacts are:

·         Impact: Increased burden on family/carer (7 comments)

·         Impact: Couldn't cope without service (7)

·         Impact: Significant increase in people living in temporary accommodation (7)

·         Impact: Poorer mental health (6)

·         Impact: Financial hardship (5)

·         Impact: Poorer access to support (5)

·         Impact: Poorer physical health (5)

Meetings: Most people who use the service are referred by statutory organisations, so if the service is reduced it would increase the pressure on those organisations.

Other services that can help with similar issues are already overwhelmed and have long waiting times. If the service was reduced it would severely limit the number of people who could be supported and people would wait a lot longer to get help.

Digital inclusion is a real concern if the service is reduced and it is likely that a lot less people would be supported to apply for the benefits they are entitled to, such as pension credit, attendance allowance and the winter fuel allowance. Applying for support with benefits, housing and mental health is complicated and it can be difficult to navigate the system when you are unwell or in crisis.

Without the support of this service people could miss out on funding that could improve their financial situation. They could also be stuck living in unsafe housing and be at risk of becoming homeless. It would make it harder for people living in temporary accommodation to find work and have their children with them. 

Local authorities have a duty to assess and provide services, so cutting the service would affect the Council’s ability to meet that duty. There would be a risk of people self-harming and a real risk to life if people are left without this support.

Suggestions

General suggestions are covered in the background report on the funding gap consultations, while service-specific ones are included here.

Survey:

·         Suggestion: Don't cut service (169 comments)

·         Suggestion: Increase rather than cut service funding (28)

·         Suggestion: Don't cut as much as proposed (24)

·         Suggestion: Continue to support the most vulnerable (26)

·         Suggestion: Merge or reorganise services (8)

·         Suggestion: Continue to provide accessible support (7)

·         Suggestion: Prioritise welfare of people impacted who currently use service (4)

·         Suggestion: Review number of service managers (4)

·         Suggestion: Ensure equivalent alternative support is available (2)

·         Suggestion: Improve service communication (2)

·         Suggestion: Increase awareness of service (2)

·         Suggestion: Increase service support offer (2)

·         Suggestion: Increase training for staff (2)

·         Suggestion: Make access to service means tested (2)

·         Suggestion: Prioritise quick response for those in need (2)

·         Suggestion: Prioritise support for filling in forms/applications (2)

Emails etc:

The top suggestions were:

·         Suggestions: More joint working (7 comments)

·         Suggestion: Focus on prevention (4 comments)

·         Suggestion: Continue to support the most vulnerable (3)

·         Suggestion: Don't cut prevention services (3)

·         Suggestion: Utilise existing and effective volunteer/charity support services (3)

·         Suggestion: Don't cut service (2)

·         Suggestion: Extend transition period of closing the service for partners to develop joint approach to homeless prevention (2)

Meetings: The following suggestions were all made by one person:

·         Don’t cut such an extreme amount, but find a better balance that would allow the work to continue more like it does now, and give more time for the provider to look for other funding. The service should be promoted better so people know about it.

·         Use places like doctors’ surgeries to promote things people are entitled to, like pension credit.

·         People could pay for the cost of their support.

·         Measure the impact of the service so its value can evidenced.

Other topics

Survey: The survey included a question that gave people the chance to make any additional comments or suggestions. The top themes for the comments were:

·         Service: Service is vital/needed (80)

·         Service: Praise of service and its benefit (61)

·         Views: Cuts target vulnerable people (61)

·         Impact: Increased pressure on other services (51)

·         Views: Worry about where people will get support instead (47)

·         Service: Praise of staff (46)

·         Views: Adds more cost in the long term for other services and/or East Sussex County Council (43)

·         Comment about personal circumstances (34)

·         Impact: Poorer mental health (30)

·         Impact: Negative impact (unspecified) (30)

Emails etc: The top other comments were about the consultation process/information (3 comments) and that East Sussex County Council must provide more information about alternative and capacity (3 comments).

Service specific questions

We asked additional service-specific questions in this survey.

Where people would have gone for support if the service hadn’t been available: The majority said they wouldn’t have known where else to go (436 comments).

The other top themes were:   

·         Views: Equivalent services not available         (140 comments)

·         Citizens Advice Bureau (96)

·         Local council          (71)

·         Comment about personal circumstances (66)

·         Council unhelpful (50)

·         People supported by service struggle to access/engage with other services (45)

·         Would have been homeless (41)

Which areas of support have made the biggest difference to helping people to live independently: The top answers were: help to better manage their mental health and emotional wellbeing (37%), and help to find new accommodation (35%).

The other top themes were:

·         Stay in existing accommodation (28%)

·         Improve your home environment (28%)

·         Increase your income (26%)

·         Manage your budget (24%)

·         Better manage your physical health (21%)

Charts and tables

Survey responses including about you information

1) Are you completing the survey as:

There were 1,340 responses to this part of the question.

Option

Total

Percent

Someone who uses/has used the Floating Support Service

714

52.69%

The family or carer of someone who uses/has used the Floating Support Service

101

7.45%

Someone who works for the Floating Support Service

59

4.35%

Someone who lives in East Sussex

115

8.49%

Someone who works in health or social care in East Sussex

215

15.87%

Someone who works in housing in East Sussex

50

3.69%

Someone who works in the voluntary or community sector

52

3.84%

Other (please provide details below)

34

2.51%

Not Answered

15

1.11%

If you ticked 'other' please provide details here:

There were 65 responses to this part of the question.

·         Comment on personal circumstances

20

·         I refer into service

8

·         Comment re service

4

·         Previously worked for the service

3

·         Housing officer

3

·         Responding on behalf of client

3

·         Citizens Advice

3

·         ESCC employee

3

·         Family/friend of someone working at service

2

·         Client

2

·         Job Centre

2

·         Charity

2

·         Community support worker

1

·         Domestic abuse service

1

·         Never heard of service

1

·         Voluntary worker

1

·         Probation service

1

·         Social worker

1

·         Social prescriber

1

·         Foodbank

1

·         Local council

1

·         BHT

1

2) How much do you agree or disagree with the proposal to reduce the funding for the Floating Support Service?

There were 1,349 responses to this part of the question.

Option

Total

Percent

Strongly agree

41

3.03%

Agree

14

1.03%

Neither agree nor disagree

37

2.73%

Disagree

118

8.71%

Strongly disagree

1118

82.51%

Not sure

21

1.55%

Not Answered

6

0.44%

Please use the box below to tell us why you agree or disagree:

There were 1,205 responses to this part of the question.

Comment theme

Total

Service: Service is vital/needed

582

Service: Praise of service and its benefit

316

Views: Cuts target vulnerable people

266

Impact: Couldn't cope without service

189

Impact: Increased pressure on other services

149

Comment about personal circumstances

125

Views: Cuts too big for service to run effectively

117

Impact: Poor/no access to support

115

Service: Immensely valued

115

Views: Worry about where people will get support instead

112

Service: Praise of staff

110

Service: Services rely on referring people to them for support

109

Service: Lifeline to people

107

Views: Unhappy/disagree with proposal

102

Impact: Homelessness

94

Impact: Negative impact (unspecified)

92

Views: Already housing crisis in East Sussex

91

Views: Equivalent services not available

91

Impact: People won’t get the support they need

90

Views: Adds more cost in the long term for other services and/or East Sussex County Council

89

Service: Very accessible

80

Service: Prevents homelessness

78

Impact: Poorer mental health

73

Impact: Loss of support filling in forms/applications

73

Impact: Loss of benefits/financial advice

72

Views: Need for this service is increasing

68

Service: Provides person-centred support

61

Impact: More people in crisis

58

Views: Detrimental to the elderly in particular

57

Impact: Loss to the community/society

53

Views: Disagree with size of the cut

53

Impact: People at increased risk without service

50

Impact: Increased burden on frontline workers supporting people

49

Suggestion: Don't cut service

48

Views: Detrimental to people with mental illness in particular

43

Impact: Poorer physical health

41

Views: Services already limited

41

Impact: Loss of signposting to further support

40

Impact: Financial hardship

39

Service: Face-to-face support is important

34

Impact: Ability to have a home/suitable home

32

Service: Gives people someone to reach out to

32

Views: Short sighted

31

Views: I wouldn't know where else to go

29

Views: Service already under pressure with capacity

28

Views: Morally wrong

27

Impact: Increased support needs

25

Service: People would not be in a suitable home without service

25

Service: Helped me rebuild my life

24

Views: Unemployment

24

Views: Priorities are wrong

23

Views: Detrimental to disabled people in particular

23

Views: Other services already struggling

22

Impact: Risk of abuse/domestic abuse

21

Impact: Isolation

20

Service: High quality

19

Suggestion: Increase rather than cut service funding

19

Views: Everyone deserves access to support

19

Views: Recognise need to make savings

19

Impact: More people having to use temporary accommodation

18

Impact: People could/will die

17

Other: Criticism of government

17

Service: Advocates for the people it supports

16

Service: Support navigating housing/benefits/social care system

16

Service: Would not be alive without service

15

Impact: Less independence

14

Suggestion: Don't cut as much as proposed

14

Views: Shameful proposal

14

Views: Unacceptable for social care staff to do this work instead

14

Suggestion: Focus on prevention

13

Impact: Detrimental to the family and/or carer of the people affected

12

Service: Criticism of service effectiveness

12

Views: Cuts create inequality

12

Other: Criticism of council

11

Impact: Cause hardship and poverty

10

Other: Comment on other council spending

10

Other: Comment on consultation process or information

9

Unspecific/unclear comment

9

Impact: Increase in crime

8

Impact: Lower quality of life

8

Impact: More hospital admissions

8

Suggestion: East Sussex County Council should manage resources better

8

Suggestion: Cut elsewhere

8

Views: Service already underfunded

8

Service: Flexible support

7

Views: Service vital for young people and their prosperity

7

Impact: Cause hardship and poverty

6

Other: Comment re government spending

6

Suggestion: Continue to support the most vulnerable

6

Views: Recognise need to make savings

6

Views: Cuts unfair/unequal

6

Views: Same support can be received elsewhere

6

Views: Already can’t cope with support they have

5

Service: Supports the family/friends of people who access the service

5

Suggestion: Cut management salaries

5

View: Poor experience of service

5

Impact: Cannot rely on care from family

4

Service: Efficient

4

Suggestion: Might as well cut entire service

4

Views: Comfort knowing the support is available

4

Views: Detrimental to neurodivergent people in particular

4

Views: Service is not a priority

4

Impact: People would have to go into care

3

Impact: Lose my current support

3

Impact: Use of alcohol and/or drugs

3

Other: Comment re consultation financial figures

3

Received no support from service

3

Service: Service built trust with people who they support

3

Suggestion: Cut East Sussex County Council staff pay

3

Suggestion: More joint working

3

Suggestion: Review number of service managers

3

Suggestion: Tax the highest earners more

3

Views: Agree with proposal

3

Views: Cutting service is a mistake

3

Views: Disagree with proposal based on anticipated impact given in consultation overview

3

Views: Service has already suffered from cuts

3

Service: Cost effective

2

Suggestion: Merge or reorganise services

2

Suggestion: Equip other service staff with housing information

2

Suggestion: Remove and condense office buildings

2

Views: People receiving support lack advocacy and representation

2

Views: Detrimental to young people in particular

2

Impact: Education

1

Impact: Forces people to leave the county

1

Impact: People discouraged from seeking help

1

Impact: Quit my job

1

Impact: Transition will be hard for people supported by service

1

Not sure

1

Comment relating to different service

1

Other: Comment re Care Act

1

Other: Quote from report

1

Other: Quote from report re deprivation in East Sussex

1

Service: Criticism of service efficiency

1

Suggestion: Charge people more to use services

1

Suggestion: Continue to provide accessible support

1

Suggestion: Cut named public health service

1

Suggestion: Ensure equivalent alternative support is available

1

Suggestion: Ensure people pay their tax

1

Suggestion: Fund service out of NHS budget

1

Suggestion: Increase service support offer

1

Suggestion: Invest in upskilling staff

1

Suggestion: Keep parts of the service running

1

Suggestion: Make access to services means tested

1

Suggestion: Pay service staff fairly

1

Suggestion: Provide ongoing support for people

1

Suggestion: Reduce benefits for those not seeking employment

1

Suggestion: Reduce forms given to ASC people

1

View: Cuts breach disability rights

1

View: Decision makers lack any understanding of needing this support

1

Views: No experience or knowledge of service

1

Views: Need to know what other options for cuts are first

1

3) How would the proposal to reduce funding for the Floating Support Service affect you or someone you care for?

There were 1,206 responses to this part of the question.

Comment theme

Total

Impact: Poor/no access to support

261

Impact: Couldn't cope without service

168

Impact: People won’t get the support they need

157

Views: Worry about where people will get support instead

140

Impact: Negative impact (unspecified)

131

Impact: Homelessness

128

Impact: Poorer mental health

122

Comment about personal circumstances

121

Views: Cuts target vulnerable people

113

Service: Service is vital/needed

103

Impact: Increased pressure on other services

91

Service: Praise of service and its benefit

81

Impact: Loss of benefits/financial advice

76

Impact: Loss of support filling in forms/applications

76

Impact: Financial hardship

71

Impact: More people in crisis

70

It does not affect me

70

Service: Services rely on referring people to them for support

64

Views: Equivalent services not available

60

Impact: Ability to have a home/suitable home

58

Service: Very accessible

54

Impact: Cause hardship and poverty

51

Impact: Detrimental to the family and/or carer of the people affected

50

Impact: People at increased risk without service

46

Views: I wouldn't know where else to go

45

Impact: Loss of signposting to further support

44

Impact: Poorer physical health

43

Service: Lifeline to people

43

Impact: Increased burden on frontline workers supporting people

42

Impact: It may affect me in the future

42

Service: Gives people someone to reach out to

39

Impact: Unemployment

37

Views: Adds more cost in the long term for other services and/or East Sussex County Council

36

Views: Cuts too big for service to run effectively

35

Service: Provides person-centred support

34

Impact: People could/will die

33

Views: Detrimental to the elderly in particular

33

Impact: Isolation

32

Service: Praise of staff

32

Views: Detrimental to people with mental illness in particular

32

Views: Comfort knowing the support is available

30

Impact: Lose my current support

29

Impact: Less independence

28

Impact: Poorer mental health

25

Impact: Loss to the community/society

20

Views: Detrimental to disabled people in particular

20

Impact: Lower quality of life

19

Service: Advocates for the people it supports

19

Service: Immensely valued

19

Service: People would not be in a suitable home without service

19

Views: Services already limited

18

Impact: Risk of abuse/domestic abuse

17

Impact: Increased support needs

17

Service: Prevents homelessness

17

Service: Face-to-face support is important

16

Suggestion: Don't cut service

16

Service: Support navigating housing/benefits/social care system

15

Impact: Ability to find work

14

Not sure

13

Service: Someone to listen to you

12

Views: Other services already struggling

11

Views: Priorities are wrong

11

Views: Already housing crisis in East Sussex

11

Unspecific/unclear comment

10

Views: Need for this service is increasing

10

Views: Unhappy/disagree with proposal

10

Views: Everyone deserves access to support

10

Service: Criticism of service effectiveness

9

Service: Service built trust with people they support

9

Views: Morally wrong

9

Impact: Cannot rely on care from family

8

Impact: More people having to use temporary accommodation

8

Service: Would not be alive without service

8

Views: Short sighted

8

Views: Service already under pressure with capacity

8

Views: Service vital for young people and their prosperity

8

Other: Comment on consultation process or information

7

Views: Cuts create inequality

7

Views: Unacceptable for social care staff to do this work instead

7

Impact: People discouraged from seeking help

6

Other: Criticism of council

6

Other: Criticism of government

6

Service: Supports the family/friends of people who access the service

6

Impact: Education

5

Impact: More hospital admissions

5

Received no support from service

5

Service: High quality

5

Views: Detrimental to neurodivergent people in particular

5

Impact: Use of alcohol and/or drugs

4

Views: People abuse service/social care system

4

Views: Detrimental to young people in particular

4

Views: Already can’t cope with support they have

3

Impact: Poorer physical health

3

Other: Comment on other council spending

3

Service: Cost effective

3

Service: Rebuilds lives

3

View: Poor experience of service

3

Views: Service already underfunded

3

Impact: Lack of active outreach to those in need

2

Impact: Loss of skilled staff

2

Impact: Loss to the community/society

2

Suggestion: Cut East Sussex County Council staff pay

2

Suggestion: Don't cut as much as proposed

2

Suggestion: Increase rather than cut service funding

2

Suggestion: More joint working

2

View: Decision makers lack any understanding of needing this support

2

Views: People supported by service struggle to access/engage with other services

2

Views: I am passionate about this service

2

Impact: More people going to prison

1

Impact: Ability to maintain work and/or carer responsibilities

1

Impact: Ability to support the people I work with

1

Impact: Delay in discharge from bedded care

1

Impact: Fear for the future

1

Impact: I would struggle to evict tenants safely

1

Impact: I'd refer people to alternative services

1

Impact: Increase in crime

1

Impact: Loss of support to adapt my home

1

Impact: People would have to go into care

1

Impact: Relapse

1

Other: Comment clearly relates to different service

1

Other: Comment re government spending

1

Other: Comment with link to report

1

Service: Criticism of staff and their knowledge/skills

1

Service: Gives one dedicated support officer

1

Suggestion: Careful planning/assessments needed before happens

1

Suggestion: Charge people more to use services

1

Suggestion: Continue to support the most vulnerable

1

Suggestion: Cut councillors’ pay

1

Suggestion: Cut elsewhere

1

Suggestion: Cut management salaries

1

Suggestion: Cut non-essential parts of the service

1

Suggestion: East Sussex County Council should manage resources better

1

Suggestion: Reduce service in gradual stages

1

Suggestion: Ring-fence funding for this service

1

Suggestion: Run fundraising activities

1

Views: Catastrophic to cut so many services at the same time

1

Views: Currently lack of safeguarding for East Sussex residents

1

Views: Cuts help alleviate pressure on other services

1

Views: Cutting service is a mistake

1

Views: Disagree with size of the cut

1

Views: Lack of hope

1

Views: Poor experience of other services

1

Views: Same support can be received elsewhere

1

Views: Shameful proposal

1

4) If the service had not been available when you needed help, where would you have gone instead for support with housing?

There were 890 responses to this part of the question.

Comment theme

Total

I wouldn't know where else to go/Not sure

436

Views: Equivalent services not available

140

Citizens Advice Bureau

96

Local council

71

Comment about personal circumstances

66

Council unhelpful

50

People struggle to access/engage with other services

45

Would have been homeless

41

Impact: Couldn't cope without service

29

Service: Praise of service and its benefit

28

Long wait time for other services

26

Local authority/adult social care

26

Poor experience of other services/named providers

25

Impact: Poor/no access to support

24

Other services already struggling

22

Family member support

20

Impact: Poorer mental health

16

Service: Face-to-face support is important

16

Views: Services already limited

14

Friends’ support

13

Local charity

13

Service: People would not be in a suitable home without service

12

Service: Would not be alive without service

12

Views: Alternative support options not adequate

12

Views: Worry about where people will get support instead

12

Received no support from service

11

Service: Very accessible

11

Unspecific/unclear comment

11

Age Concern

9

Impact: Increased pressure on other services

9

Service: Praise of staff

9

Impact: Loss of support filling in forms/applications

7

Brighton Housing Trust

6

Impact: Detrimental to the family and/or carer of the people affected

6

Impact: Cannot rely on care from family

5

Shelter

5

Solicitors

5

Council hard to contact

4

GP

4

Local MP

4

Food Bank

3

Hastings Advice and Representation Centre

3

Hospital

3

Housing Associations

3

Housing Authority

3

Impact: Isolation

3

Library

3

Mental health services

3

Other housing services

3

Samaritans

3

Seaview

3

Search online

3

Age UK

2

Council should signpost to adequate alternative services

2

Emergency shelters

2

I would go to my GP

2

Impact: Less independence

2

Impact: Cause hardship and poverty

2

Impact: Loss of benefits/financial advice

2

Impact: People at increased risk

2

Police

2

Service: Advocates for the people it supports

2

Service: Service is vital/needed

2

Views: Already housing crisis in East Sussex

2

Views: Comfort knowing the support is available

2

Views: Cuts create inequality

2

Views: Detrimental to people with mental illness in particular

2

Views: Service already under pressure with capacity

2

Would have waited until my circumstances declined

2

Young Men’s Christian Association

2

Advocacy service

1

Agency

1

Ask my manager where to refer people

1

Ask people around me

1

Association of Carers

1

Benefits agency

1

Care for the Carers

1

Charities limited in support they can provide

1

Church

1

Community Outreach Service

1

Counsellor

1

East Sussex Housing

1

Eastbourne homes

1

Emergency services

1

East Sussex Recovery Alliance

1

Government

1

Hastings Advice and Representation Centre

1

Homelink

1

Current services previous name given

1

Impact: Cannot afford private support

1

Impact: Fear for the future

1

Impact: More people having to use temporary accommodation

1

Impact: People could die

1

Impact: People discouraged from seeking help

1

Impact: People would have to go into care

1

Impact: People won’t get the support they need

1

Impact: Unemployment

1

Impact: Use of drug/alcohol

1

Internet

1

Job Centre

1

Lack of trust in other services

1

Local media

1

Macmillan

1

Nearest housing support service

1

Other: Criticism of government

1

Poor experience with local MP

1

Private agency

1

Psychiatric Unit

1

Rough Sleepers Initiative

1

Armed Forces charity, the Soldiers’, Sailors’, and Airmen’s Families Association

1

Sussex Community Development Association

1

Service found me

1

Service: Gives people someone to reach out to

1

Service: Lifeline to people

1

Service: Support navigating housing/benefits/social care system

1

Social media forums

1

Social Prescriber

1

Southdown Housing

1

Single Point of Advice (SPoA)

1

Stonewall

1

Suggestion: Council should provide directory of accommodation

1

Sussex Homemove

1

Unable to comment

1

Victim Support Service

1

Views: Cuts too big for service to run effectively

1

Views: Detrimental to neurodivergent people in particular

1

Views: Detrimental to the elderly in particular

1

Views: Lack of information on other services available

1

5) Which of the following areas of support from the service have made the biggest difference to helping you live independently?

There were 880 responses to this part of the question.

Option

Total

Percent

Stay in existing accommodation

377

27.82%

Find new accommodation

471

34.76%

Improve your home environment

376

27.75%

Increase your income

353

26.05%

Manage your budget

319

23.54%

Reduce your debts

260

19.19%

Better manage your physical health

287

21.18%

Better manage your mental health and emotional wellbeing

495

36.53%

Avoid harm from others

154

11.37%

Manage the misuse of drugs or alcohol

75

5.54%

Use computers and/or digital devices

174

12.84%

Use health services

188

13.87%

Reduce self-harm

116

8.56%

Not Answered

475

35.06%

Please tell us about anything else the service has supported you with that has made a difference to helping you live independently:

There were 531 responses to this part of the question.

Comment theme

Total

Filling in forms

74

Support with benefits

72

Help with housing

64

Financial support/advice

61

Someone who listened to me

61

Avoid feeling overwhelmed

40

Comment about personal circumstances

39

Build independence

35

Help with mental health

35

Service: Praise of staff

32

Build confidence

28

Access to food and/or fuel vouchers

27

Clear advice on my options

26

Managing a tenancy

26

Service: Provides person-centred support

25

Signposting to other services

25

Accessing disabilities support

24

Received no support from service

24

Safe environment

23

Helped me find a suitable home

21

Liaising with other services

20

Service: Praise of service and its benefit

20

Service: Very accessible

20

Applying for housing

19

Getting utilities/furniture for my home

19

Moral support

19

Gave me hope

18

Help with physical health

18

Views: Comfort knowing the support is available

17

Information Technology/Digital support

15

Legal advice

15

Managing my home

15

Unspecific/unclear comment

13

Regular check-ups from staff

12

Service: Face-to-face support is important

12

Helps at time of crisis

11

Reduce isolation

11

Safeguarding people they support and/or their family

11

Adaptations to my home

9

Service provides a wide range of support

9

Feeling supported

9

Ability to afford living essentials

8

Build my knowledge

8

Liaising with local authority/adult social care

8

Service: Service is vital/needed

8

Service: Prevents homelessness

6

Support with addiction

6

Helps rebuild lives

5

Impact: Couldn't cope without service

5

Service: Would not be alive without service

5

The ability to access help

5

Views: I wouldn't know where else to go

5

Views: Poor experience of service

5

Help with life skills

4

Not sure

4

Accessing pension credit

3

Changed their life

3

Giving me a voice

3

Increases independence

3

Phone calls

3

Service: Lifeline to people

3

Support to attend appointments

3

Views: Worry about where people will get support instead

3

Views: Detrimental to people with mental illness in particular

3

Accessing food banks

2

Get into work

2

Getting a personal assistant

2

Improve my quality of life

2

Keeping updated with relevant information

2

Service: Criticism of service effectiveness

2

Staying in my own home

2

Suggestion: Don't cut service

2

Support with basic living needs

2

Views: Service vital for young people and their prosperity

2

Access to healthcare

1

Access to translation when meeting support services

1

Applying for identification documents

1

Appointing a Power of Attorney

1

Build social skills

1

Dementia support

1

Having a place for friends/family to visit

1

Impact: Loss to the community/society

1

Impact: People at increased risk without service

1

Impact: More people in crisis

1

Integrating with the community

1

Navigating eviction

1

Other: Criticism of council

1

Other: Criticism of government

1

Regular visits from other services

1

Respite

1

Setting up a bank account

1

Social interactions

1

Support to settle in new accommodation

1

Understanding letter

1

Views: People abuse service/social care system

1

Views: Cuts too big for service to run effectively

1

Views: Detrimental to neurodivergent people in particular

1

Writing letters

1

6) Do you have any other suggestions or comments you would like to make?

There were 616 responses to this part of the question.

Comment theme

Total

Suggestion: Don't cut service

169

Service: Service is vital/needed

80

Service: Praise of service and its benefit

61

Views: Cuts target vulnerable people

61

Impact: Increased pressure on other services

51

Views: Worry about where people will get support instead

47

Service: Praise of staff

46

Views: Adds more cost in the long term for other services and/or East Sussex County Council

43

Comment about personal circumstances

34

Impact: Poorer mental health

30

Impact: Negative impact (unspecified)

30

Impact: More people in crisis

28

Suggestion: Increase rather than cut service funding

28

Impact: Poor/no access to support

27

Impact: Homelessness

26

Suggestion: Continue to support the most vulnerable

26

Views: Equivalent services not available

26

Impact: Couldn't cope without service

25

Views: Recognise need to make savings

25

Suggestion: Don't cut as much as proposed

24

Impact: Loss to the community/society

23

Service: Lifeline to people

23

Suggestion: East Sussex County Council should manage resources better

22

Views: Proposal is morally wrong

21

Views: Priorities are wrong

20

Impact: People won’t get the support they need

18

Other: Comment on consultation process or information

18

Views: Unhappy/disagree with proposal

18

Views: Cuts too big for service to run effectively

18

Suggestion: Cut elsewhere

16

Views: Need for this service is increasing

16

Views: Short sighted

15

Other: Comment on other council spending

14

Service: Very accessible

14

Impact: People at increased risk without service

13

Impact: People could/will die

13

Impact: Financial hardship

12

Impact: Poorer physical health

12

Views: Detrimental to the elderly in particular

12

Service: Face-to-face support is important

11

Suggestion: More joint working

11

Service: Gives people someone to reach out to

10

Service: Immensely valued

10

Impact: Loss of benefits/financial advice

9

Views: Services already limited

9

Views: Already housing crisis in East Sussex

9

Views: Other services already struggling

9

Other: Criticism of government

8

Service: Prevents homelessness

8

Suggestion: Merge or reorganise services

8

Views: Detrimental to people with mental illness in particular

8

Impact: Lower quality of life

7

Other: Comment re government budget

7

Other: Criticism of council

7

Suggestion: Continue to provide accessible support

7

Unspecific/unclear comment

7

Impact: Less independence

6

Service: Services rely on referring people to them for support

6

Suggestion: Cut management salaries

6

Suggestion: Focus on prevention

6

Views: Worry about where people will get support instead

6

Views: Cuts unfair/unequal

6

Views: Detrimental to disabled people in particular

6

Impact: Increase in support needs

5

Impact: Loss of support filling in forms/applications

5

Impact: More hospital admissions

5

Service: Provides person-centred support

5

Suggestion: Do things differently and innovate

5

Suggestion: Listen to the consultation feedback

5

Suggestion: Prioritise support for mental health

5

Suggestion: Remove and condense office buildings

5

Views: Service already under pressure with capacity

5

Impact: Cause hardship and poverty

4

Impact: Detrimental to the family and/or carer of the people affected

4

Other: Comment re government spending

4

Suggestion: Prioritise welfare of people impacted who currently use service

4

Suggestion: Review number of service managers

4

Views: Find an alternative way to save money

4

Views: People will lose their job

4

Impact: Lower quality of life

3

Impact: Increased burden on frontline workers supporting people

3

Other: Comment re government

3

Service: Criticism of service efficiency

3

Service: Advocates for the people it supports

3

Service: Supports the family/friends of people accessing the service

3

Views: People abuse service/social care system/system

3

Views: Cuts create inequality

3

Views: Cutting service is a mistake

3

Views: Service funding should go to other services

3

Views: Service vital for young people and their prosperity

3

Views: Shameful proposal

3

Views: Too many proposed cuts by East Sussex County Council at once

3

Impact: People would have to go into care

2

Impact: Ability to have a home/suitable home

2

Impact: Cannot rely on care from family

2

Impact: Loss of signposting to further support

2

Impact: Use of alcohol and/or drugs

2

Other: Comment re national finances

2

Other: Criticism of motivation behind proposal

2

Received no support from the service

2

Service: High quality

2

Service: Service built trust with people they support

2

Service: Service provides a wide range of support

2

Service: Would not be alive without service

2

Suggestion: Better use of funding

2

Suggestion: Cut councillors’ pay

2

Suggestion: Ensure equivalent alternative support is available

2

Suggestion: Focus on providing stable and affordable housing

2

Suggestion: Improve service communication

2

Suggestion: Increase awareness of service

2

Suggestion: Increase service support offer

2

Suggestion: Increase training for staff

2

Suggestion: Look for private investors

2

Suggestion: Make access to services means tested

2

Suggestion: Prioritise quick response to those in need

2

Suggestion: Raise money from the highest earners

2

Suggestion: Reduce use of external private services

2

Suggestion: Tax the highest earners more

2

View: Decision makers lack any understanding of needing this support

2

Views: Comfort knowing the support is available

2

Views: Disagree with size of the cut

2

Views: Poor experience of other services

2

Views: Poor experience of service

2

Suggestion: Prioritise support for filling in forms/applications

2

Views: Already can’t cope with support they have

1

Impact: Increase in crime

1

Impact: Isolation

1

Impact: More people having to use temporary accommodation

1

Impact: Reduce trust in East Sussex County Council

1

Other: Allow redundancy requests

1

Other: Comment on ineffectiveness of support in the long term

1

Other: Comment on survey

1

Other: Comment re impact of government actions

1

Other: Comment re impact on local politics

1

Other: Comment re law

1

Other: Comment re rent eligibility

1

Other: Unsure why East Sussex County Council cannot afford budget gap

1

Service: Support navigating housing/benefits/social care system

1

Suggestion: Focus on quality not just cost with contractors

1

Suggestion: Reduce public transport costs

1

Suggestion: Use technology

1

Suggestion: Use volunteers

1

Suggestion: Better monitoring of people’s support needs

1

Suggestion: Better monitoring of service performance

1

Suggestion: Carry out full risk assessment of reducing service

1

Suggestion: Carry out risk assessment for other services impacted

1

Suggestion: Charge for use of NHS services

1

Suggestion: Close service and signpost to alternative support

1

Suggestion: Co-locate services

1

Suggestion: Consider the impact it has on the most vulnerable

1

Suggestion: Control population size

1

Suggestion: Cut Learning Disability services

1

Suggestion: Cut operational costs

1

Suggestion: Cut named Public Health service

1

Suggestion: Cut services supporting the least need

1

Suggestion: Develop the service with co-production

1

Suggestion: Education in schools on life skills

1

Suggestion: Find other ways to generate income

1

Suggestion: Focus on building young people’s independence

1

Suggestion: Focus on helping people understand options available to them

1

Suggestion: Generate income from non-health-related/essential services and events

1

Suggestion: Hire compassionate staff

1

Suggestion: Improve service responsiveness

1

Suggestion: Incentivise the remaining support

1

Suggestion: Increase council tax

1

Suggestion: Invest in more accommodation

1

Suggestion: Joint transport between services

1

Suggestion: Limit amount of support per person

1

Suggestion: Lobby the government

1

Suggestion: Make decisions after May elections

1

Suggestion: Make small even cuts across all services

1

Suggestion: Manage immigration and/or international aid better

1

Suggestion: Offer group/peer support

1

Suggestion: Prioritise accessible support

1

Suggestion: Prioritise housing support

1

Suggestion: Prioritise support for adults and children differently

1

Suggestion: Prioritise support for dementia

1

Suggestion: Prioritise support for domestic abuse victims

1

Suggestion: Produce more self-help resources

1

Suggestion: Promote house sharing

1

Suggestion: Provide clearer information on support available for residents

1

Suggestion: Provide more person-centred/co-produced support

1

Suggestion: Provide more support for blind people

1

Suggestion: Reduce benefits for those not seeking employment

1

Suggestion: Reduce homelessness

1

Suggestion: Reduce public transport salaries

1

Suggestion: Reduce service in gradual stages

1

Suggestion: Reduce tax for the lowest earners

1

Suggestion: Review housing benefit payments

1

Suggestion: Stricter enforcement of fines (e.g., parking)

1

Suggestion: Utilise staff skills better

1

Suggestion: Work closely with service to mitigate impact

1

Views: Concern re unpredictable outcomes

1

Views: Curious re impact of not balancing the budget

1

Views: Detrimental to neurodivergent people in particular

1

Views: I am passionate about this service

1

Views: Social Care system is broken

1

About you equality questions

People were given the option of answering these questions, with 996 choosing to take part and 359 choosing not to answer them.

 

What age are you?

There were 955 responses to this part of the question, one of which was not an age.

Age

Total

Percentage of respondents

Under 18

1

<1%

18-24

26

2%

25-34

80

6%

35-44

122

9%

45-54

203

15%

55-59

104

8%

60-64

116

9%

65+

302

22%

Not answered

401

30%

What is your gender?

There were 993 responses to this part of the question.

Option

Total

Percent

Female

657

48.49%

Male

328

24.21%

Non-binary

3

0.22%

Prefer to self-describe (please write in below)

0

0.00%

Prefer not to say

5

0.37%

Not Answered

362

26.72%


Self-described gender:

There were 5 responses to this part of the question:

·         Comment on relevance/motive behind question x 3

·         Transgender female

·         Female

Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth?

There were 990 responses to this part of the question.

Option

Total

Percent

Yes

976

72.03%

No (please write in your gender identity below)

5

0.37%

Prefer not to say

9

0.66%

Not Answered

365

26.94%


Gender identity:

There were 8 responses to this part of the question:

·         Comment on relevance/motive behind question x 4

·         Female x 2

·         Man

·         Unspecific/unclear

What is your ethnic group?

There were 986 responses to this part of the question.

Option

Total

Percent

White English/Welsh/Scottish /Northern Irish/British

868

64.06%

White Irish

18

1.33%

White Gypsy/Irish Traveler

4

0.30%

White Roma

1

0.07%

Any other White background (please write in below)

33

2.44%

Mixed White and Black Caribbean

4

0.30%

Mixed White and Black African

6

0.44%

Mixed White and Asian

6

0.44%

Any other Mixed or Multiple background (please write in below)

2

0.15%

Asian or Asian British Indian

1

0.07%

Asian or Asian British Pakistani

3

0.22%

Asian or Asian British Bangladeshi

4

0.30%

Asian or Asian British Chinese

0

0.00%

Any other Asian background (please write in below)

5

0.37%

Black or Black British Caribbean

3

0.22%

Black or Black British African background (please write in below)

5

0.37%

Any other Black, Black British or Caribbean background (please write in below)

1

0.07%

Arab

1

0.07%

Any other ethnic group (please write in below)

7

0.52%

Prefer not to say

14

1.03%

Not Answered

369

27.23%


Other:

There were 45 responses to this part of the question. People provided names of countries across Asia, Europe, and America; specific White, Black, and Mixed ethnicities; and comments on the motivations behind the questions. 

Which of the following best describes your sexual orientation?

There were 972 responses to this part of the question.

Option

Total

Percent

‘Straight’ / Heterosexual

851

62.80%

Gay or Lesbian

38

2.80%

Bisexual

26

1.92%

Prefer to self-describe (please write in below)

8

0.59%

Prefer not to say

49

3.62%

Not Answered

383

28.27%


Self-described sexual orientation:

There were 17 responses to this part of the question.

·         Unspecific/unclear x 7

·         Fluid x 3

·         Comment on question x 2

·         Asexual x 2

·         Straight

·         Pansexual

·         Asexual and Aromantic

What is your religion or belief?

There were 963 responses to this part of the question.

Option

Total

Percent

No religion

446

32.92%

Christian (including Church of England, Catholic, Protestant and all other Christian denominations)

432

31.88%

Buddhist

12

0.89%

Hindu

1

0.07%

Jewish

2

0.15%

Muslim

15

1.11%

Sikh

0

0.00%

Any other religion (please write in below)

18

1.33%

Philosophical belief (please write in below)

12

0.89%

Prefer not to say

25

1.85%

Not Answered

392

28.93%


Other religion:

There were 47 responses to this part of the question.

People shared specific beliefs including different forms of Christianity, Paganism, Catholicism, Judaism, Muslim, Spiritualism, and forms of Humanism. 

Do you have any physical or mental health conditions or illnesses lasting or expected to last 12 months or more?

There were 969 responses to this part of the question.

Option

Total

Percent

Yes (please answer part B below)

621

45.83%

No (go to the next question)

322

23.76%

Prefer not to say (go to the next question)

26

1.92%

Not Answered

386

28.49%

 

Do any of your conditions or illnesses reduce your ability to carry out day-to-day activities?

There were 818 responses to this part of the question.

Option

Total

Percent

Yes, a lot (please answer part C below)

400

29.52%

Yes, a little (please answer part C below)

196

14.46%

Not at all (go to the next question)

191

14.10%

Prefer not to say (go to the next question)

31

2.29%

Not Answered

537

39.63%

Do you have any physical or mental health conditions or illnesses lasting or expected to last 12 months or more?

There were 638 responses to this part of the question.

Option

Total

Percent

Physical Impairment

343

25.31%

Sensory Impairment

94

6.94%

Learning Disability/Difficulty

59

4.35%

Long-standing illness

273

20.15%

Mental Health condition

312

23.03%

Neurodivergent condition

76

5.61%

Other Developmental Condition

12

0.89%

Other (please write in below)

64

4.72%

Prefer not to say

37

2.73%

Not Answered

717

52.92%

Other:

There were 115 responses to this part of the question. This included very specific details regarding illnesses falling under the above health categories, as well as how it impacts their ability to cope day-to-day. Conditions provided largely covered:

·         Autoimmune diseases/disorders

·         Cancer

·         Cardiovascular disease

·         Conditions relating to energy levels

·         Degenerative cognitive conditions

·         Diabetes type 1 or 2

·         Hormonal and/or vitamin imbalance

·         Inflammatory conditions

·         Mental health conditions

·         Pain

·         Physical injuries

·         Respiratory conditions

·         Visual impairment

Are you currently pregnant or did you give birth in the last twelve months?

There were 954 responses to this part of the question.

Option

Total

Percent

Yes

19

1.40%

No

922

68.04%

Prefer not to say

13

0.96%

Not Answered

401

29.59%

Are there any children under the age of 18 living in your household? 

There were 965 responses to this part of the question.

Option

Total

Percent

Yes

224

16.53%

No

728

53.73%

Prefer not to say

13

0.96%

Not Answered

390

28.78%

Do you look after, or give any help or support to, anyone because they have long-term physical or mental health conditions or illnesses, or problems related to old age?

There were 959 responses to this part of the question.

Option

Total

Percent

Yes

310

22.88%

No (go to next question)

628

46.35%

Prefer not to say

21

1.55%

Not Answered

396

29.23%

Hours of care given a week

There were 308 responses to this part of the question.

Option

Total

Percent

9 hours a week or less

84

6.20%

10 to 19 hours a week

17

1.25%

20 to 34 hours a week

18

1.33%

35 to 49 hours a week

37

2.73%

50 hours or more a week

113

8.34%

Prefer not to say

39

2.88%

Not Answered

1047

77.27%

Who you care for

There were 328 responses to this part of the question.

Option

Total

Percent

Parent

95

7.01%

Partner/spouse

120

8.86%

Child with special needs

48

3.54%

Other family member

36

2.66%

Friend

15

1.11%

Other (please give details)

19

1.40%

Prefer not to say

19

1.40%

Not Answered

1027

75.79%


If you answered 'other', please explain here:

There were 32 responses to this part of the question. Comments covered the following areas regarding who people care for:

·         Family members (some specifying multiple family members) across different generations.

·         Care via volunteering or job role.

·         Assistant animals.

Armed Forces Service: Are you currently serving, or have you previously served in the UK Armed Forces (this includes Reservists or part-time service)?

There were 952 responses to this part of the question.

Option

Total

Percent

Yes

21

1.55%

No

924

68.19%

Prefer not to say

7

0.52%

Not Answered

403

29.74%

Are you in a household or family where someone is currently or was previously serving in the UK Armed Forces?

There were 970 responses to this part of the question.

Option

Total

Percent

Yes

56

4.13%

No

904

66.72%

Prefer not to say

10

0.74%

Not Answered

385

28.41%

Please tell us your postcode:

There were 745 responses to this part of the question and 220 people chose prefer not to say.

Area in East Sussex

Total

Percentage of respondents

Lewes

77

6%

Eastbourne

193

14%

Wealden

156

12%

Rother

105

8%

Hastings

176

13%

Thirty-eight people (3%) provided postcodes outside of East Sussex.

Map showing the location of respondents (similar information is provided in the previous table)

Other feedback by email etc

Floating Support Service consultation responses

There were 17 responses to the consultation by other feedback methods. All of them were submitted by email and all but one came from organisations. The only individual response came from a resident of East Sussex.  

The organisations who submitted a response are: 

·         BHT Sussex

·         Care for the Carers

·         Children's Services at East Sussex County Council

·         Eastbourne Borough Council

·         Hastings Borough Council (2 responses)

·         Heads of Housing across the district and borough authorities

·         Healthwatch East Sussex

·         Lewes District Council

·         Lewes Town Council

·         NHS Sussex

·         Rother District Council

·         Sussex Community Development Association

·         Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust

·         Wealden Citizens Advice

·         Wealden District Council

The tables below cover the comment themes for all the respondents.

Views

Comment themes

Total

Views: Recognise need to make savings

10

Views: Cuts target the most vulnerable

9

Views: Proposal adds more cost in the long term

9

Views: Equivalent services not available

7

Views: Already housing crisis in East Sussex

6

Views: Other services already struggling

6

Views: Will shift cost onto districts and boroughs

6

Views: Detrimental to disabled people in particular

5

Views: Detrimental to people with mental illness in particular

5

Views: Disagree

5

Views: Need for this service is increasing

5

Views: Service vital for safeguarding people support by the service and/or people around them

4

Views: Cuts unfair/unequal

3

Views: Detrimental to homeless people in particular

3

Views: Detrimental to the elderly in particular

3

Views: Disagree with size of the cut

3

Service: Service is vital

2

Views: Catastrophic to cut so many services at the same time

2

Views: People supported by service struggle to access/engage with other services

2

Views: Concerned about impact of proposal

2

Views: Concerned about impact on Hastings residents

2

Views: Concerned where else people would get support

2

Views: Concerned where families will get support instead

2

Views: Cutting service is a mistake

2

Views: Impacts will be immediate for people accessing the service and statutory services

2

Views: No capacity for districts and boroughs to provide the support instead

2

Views: People may be affected by multiple proposed cuts

2

Views: Alternative services not suitable

1

Views: Carers vital for health and social care economy

1

Views: Concern re timeframe for cuts

1

Views: Cuts too big for service to run effectively

1

Views: Don't close service

1

Views: Families/carers need support too

1

Views: Homelessness prevention statutory under the Homelessness Reduction Act

1

Views: Insufficient time for other organisations to respond/mitigate risks

1

Views: Money won't be saved

1

Views: Priorities are wrong

1

Views: Short sighted

1

Views: Understand prioritising statutory duties

1

Views: Wellbeing relies on access to broad range of services

1

Service

Comment themes

Total

Service: Prevents homelessness

10

Service: Services rely on referring people to them for support

8

Service: Service is vital

6

Service: Works well alongside other services

6

Service: Praise of service

4

Service: Achieved good outcomes

3

Service: Praise of staff

3

Service: Provides person-centred support

3

Service: Very accessible

3

Service: Helps people to regain independence

2

Service: Helps to get/maintain employment

2

Service: High quality

2

Service: Immensely valued

2

Service: Lifeline to people

2

Service: Only service of its sort

2

Service: Specialist knowledge unique to service

2

Service: Supports engagement with other wellbeing initiatives

2

Service: Supports the most vulnerable

2

Service: Access to food banks/vouchers

1

Service: Cost effective

1

Service: Face-to-face support is important

1

Service: Flexible support

1

Service: Importance of the home visits

1

Service: Rebuilds lives

1

Service: Service built trust with people they support

1

Service: Service is beneficial

1

Service: Service key to wellbeing

1

Service: Support with finance and/or benefits

1

Service: Without service I would still be in an unsuitable home

1

Services: Signpost and connects to other services

1

 

Impact

Comment themes

Total

Impact: Increased pressure on other services

13

Impact: Increased cost for other organisations

10

Impact: Homelessness

8

Impact: Increased burden on family/carer

7

Impact: Couldn't cope without service

7

Impact: Significant increase in people living in temporary accommodation

7

Impact: Poorer mental health

6

Impact: Financial hardship

5

Impact: Poorer access to support

5

Impact: Poorer physical health

5

Impact: Ability to have a home/suitable home

4

Impact: Ability to sustain living independently and maintaining accommodation

4

Impact: Add more costs in the long term

4

Impact: People supported by service at increased risk

4

Impact: Compromise other organisations’ work

4

Impact: More people in crisis

4

Impact: People’s needs won't be met

4

Impact: Unsuitable housing detrimental to child development

4

Impact: Education

3

Impact: Loss of partnership working

3

Impact: Loss of skilled/specialist workforce

3

Impact: Ability to care for child

2

Impact: Employment

2

Impact: Even more limited services

2

Impact: Families would split up

2

Impact: Increase in crime

2

Impact: Increased burden on frontline workers supporting people

2

Impact: Loss of jobs

2

Impact: Multiple disadvantages for some who use several services

2

Impact: Negative impact (unspecified)

2

Impact: NHS

2

Impact: People could/will die

2

Impact: Poorer long-term outcomes

2

Impact: Use of alcohol and/or drugs

2

Views: Service already under pressure with capacity

2

Impact: Ability to maintain work and carer responsibilities

1

Impact: Carers will have less of a break

1

Impact: Community at increased risk

1

Impact: Cuts create inequality

1

Impact: Destabilise wider 'system' with rise in demand

1

Impact: Detrimental to already deprived communities in East Sussex

1

Impact: Engagement with other services

1

Impact: Greater risk of people losing their homes

1

Impact: Increase homelessness if cut

1

Impact: Increase in anti-social behaviour

1

Impact: Increase in families becoming homeless

1

Impact: Isolation

1

Impact: Less tailored or bespoke support

1

Impact: Loss of signposting/access to other services

1

Impact: Loss of staff results in loss of tax revenue

1

Impact: Loss to the community

1

Impact: Lower quality of life

1

Impact: Negative on carers

1

Impact: People would need to be in crisis to get help

1

Impact: Poorer recovery

1

Impact: Reduce carers’ wellbeing

1

Impact: Reduce in wellbeing for people supported by services

1

Impact: Relapse

1

Impact: Size of cut hinders ability to scale up service in future again

1

Impact: Undo what staff have worked hard to build

1

Suggestions

Comment themes

Total

Suggestions: More joint working

7

Suggestion: Focus on prevention

4

Suggestion: Continue to support the most vulnerable

3

Suggestion: Don't cut prevention services

3

Suggestion: Utilise existing and effective volunteer/charity support services

3

Suggestion: Don't cut service

2

Suggestion: Extend transition period of the floating support service for partners to develop joint approach to homeless prevention

2

Suggestion: Careful planning/assessments needed before happens

1

Suggestion: Develop the model before you decide the funding

1

Suggestion: Do things differently and innovate

1

Suggestion: Don't cut as much as proposed

1

Suggestion: Find other ways to save money

1

Suggestion: Lobby government in partnership with other services

1

Suggestion: Make decisions after May elections

1

Suggestion: Prioritise the housing elements of service

1

Suggestion: Reduce service in gradual stages

1

Suggestion: Reduce use of expensive residential care for adults

1

Suggestion: Use learning from current service to develop new model

1

Suggestion: Work with partners to develop new model

1

Other comments

Comment themes

Total

Other: Comment on consultation process or information

3

Other: East Sussex County Council must provide more information about alternatives and capacity

3

Other: Appreciation of East Sussex County Council's acknowledgement of impacts and commitment to co-production

1

Other: Can re-model service with smaller cut to reduce impact on capacity

1

Other: Care for the Carers must represent carers in design of alternative support

1

Other: Comment re consultation financial figures

1

Other: Comment re government funding

1

Other: Cost of temporary accommodation is driving financial instability in local authorities

1

Other: Districts and boroughs not in a financial position to cope with impacts of cuts

1

Other: East Sussex County Council needs to provide detailed financial information on savings

1

Other: East Sussex County Council should provide more information on which neighbourhoods currently benefit most from service

1

Other: How are the proposals being communicated to other organisations?

1

Other: How will East Sussex County Council meet its duty to shape the local adult social care market?

1

Other: Near future changes in government funding possible

1

Other: Not everyone affected will qualify for housing services

1

Other: Proposal in conflict with East Sussex County Council housing strategy

1

Other: Should have allowed more time to discuss proposals

1

Other: Supporting and working with VCSE sector vital for improved outcomes

1

Other: Unrealistic to expect other services to mitigate impacts sufficiently

1

Other: VCSE need services to signpost to

1

Other: Want to see the Equal Impact Assessment and proposed mitigations

1

Other: Welcome work with partners to scope cross-sector approach to homelessness prevention

1

Other: Work with NHS Sussex to understand and mitigate risks

1

Overall consultation responses

Responses addressing all 11 consultations combined

There were 10 responses addressing all 11 consultations at once by letter and email. These were from organisations (5), residents (4) and a member of parliament (1).

The organisations who submitted a response are:

·         Rother District Council

·         Lewes Liberal Democrats

·         Care for the Carers

·         East Sussex VCSE Alliance

·         East Sussex Seniors Associations

The tables below cover the comment themes for all the respondents.

Views

Comment themes

Total

Views: Cuts target the most vulnerable

6

Views: Recognise need to make savings

5

Views: Disagree

3

Views: Already housing crisis in East Sussex

2

Views: Concerned about impact of proposal

2

Views: Don't close service

2

Views: Limited capacity for VCSE sector to provide the support instead

2

Views: Proposal is morally wrong

2

Views: Proposal adds more cost in the long term

2

Views: Will shift cost onto districts and boroughs

2

Views: Angry with proposal

1

Views: Carers of people using service care for multiple people already

1

Views: Carers vital for health and social care economy

1

Views: Concern about impact on level of support services can provide post-cuts

1

Views: Concern re timeframe for cuts

1

Views: Concerned where people would go instead

1

Views: Cuts unfair/unequal

1

Views: Detrimental to the elderly in particular

1

Views: Disagree with using private organisations

1

Views: East Sussex County Council wastes money

1

Views: Homelessness prevention statutory under the Homelessness Reduction Act

1

Views: Impacts will be immediate for people accessing the service and statutory services

1

Views: Insufficient time for other organisations to respond/mitigate risks

1

Views: Knows disabled people who could work but don't

1

Views: Must prioritise the most vulnerable

1

Views: Other services already struggling

1

Views: Private support too expensive

1

Views: Service vital for safeguarding people they support and/or people around them

1

Views: Shameful proposal

1

Service

Comment themes

Total

Service: Prevents homelessness

1

Impact

Comment themes

Total

Impact: Increased pressure on other services

3

Impact: Poorer mental health

3

Impact: Financial hardship

2

Impact: Increased cost for other organisations

2

Impact: Poorer physical health

2

Impact: Increased burden on family/carer

1

Impact: Ability to maintain work and carer responsibilities

1

Impact: Add more costs in the long term

1

Impact: At risk of suicide

1

Impact: Carers will have less of a break

1

Impact: People using service at increased risk

1

Impact: Community at increased risk

1

Impact: Encourages negative attitude towards people who need support

1

Impact: Hardship and poverty

1

Impact: Homelessness

1

Impact: Isolation

1

Impact: Loss of staff results in loss of tax revenue

1

Impact: Loss to the community

1

Impact: Lower quality of life

1

Impact: More people would be in out-of-area accommodation

1

Impact: More hospital admissions

1

Impact: More people in crisis

1

Impact: Negative impact (unspecified)

1

Impact: Negative on carers

1

Impact: NHS

1

Impact: Poorer access to support

1

Impact: Reduce carers’ wellbeing

1

Impact: Reduce wellbeing of people supported by services

1

Impact: Risk of abuse/domestic abuse

1

Impact: Significant increase in people living in temporary accommodation

1

Impact: Unsuitable housing detrimental to child development

1

Impact: Use of alcohol and/or drugs

1

Suggestions

Comment themes

Total

Suggestion: Focus on prevention

3

Suggestion: Utilise existing and effective volunteer/charity support services

3

Suggestions: More joint working

3

Suggestion: Continue to support the most vulnerable

2

Suggestion: Allow VCSE partners to reduce rental outgoings

1

Suggestion: Build accommodation under a Community Land Trust

1

Suggestion: Consider impact of loss of winter fuel allowance

1

Suggestion: Cut management salaries

1

Suggestion: Do things differently and innovate

1

Suggestion: Don't cut prevention services

1

Suggestion: Don't cut service

1

Suggestion: East Sussex County Council should manage resources better

1

Suggestion: Prioritise support for young people coming out of care

1

Suggestion: Run accommodation/care homes as a business to generate profit

1

Suggestion: Signpost charities to other sources of funding

1

Suggestion: Transfer assets to voluntary sector

1

Suggestion: Work with partners to develop new model

1

Other comments

Other: Supporting and working with VCSE sector vital for improved outcomes

2

Other: Appreciation of East Sussex County Council 's acknowledgement of impacts and commitment to co-production

1

Other: Care for the Carers must represent carers in design of alternative support

1

Other: Comment on consultation process or information

1

Other: Comment on government policy and country-wide issues not specific to consultations

1

Other: Comment re government funding

1

Other: Cost of temporary accommodation is driving financial instability in local authorities

1

Other: Districts and boroughs are not in a financial position to cope with impacts of cuts

1

Other: East Sussex County Council must provide more information about alternatives and capacity

1

Other: Provide information on proposed alternatives/mitigations

1

Other: Question re raising awareness of consultations with public

1

Other: Want to see the Equal Impact Assessment and proposed mitigations

1

Other: Will this be all the cuts or is more needed?

1

Other: Would NHS & ASCH save by working together?

1

Consultation meetings

A consultation meeting was held in each area of the county, as well as an online meeting.  

Date held

Area of the county

Attendees

11 November

Newhaven

3 people who had used the service

6 staff members from the service

18 November

St Leonards

14 people who had used the service

5 staff members from the service

19 November

Bexhill

8 people who had used the service

5 staff members from the service

21 November

Polegate

2 people who had used the service

4 staff members from the service

25 November

Eastbourne

3 people who had used the service

3 staff members from the service

27 November

Online meeting

5 people who had used the service

Themes from the Newhaven meeting

·         Views: One person recognised the need to make savings and another wanted clarification about whether the attendance allowance was affected. The service is often there at points of crisis and it is really valued for this reason.

·         Service: The service has helped them to access support and funding they weren’t aware of and is described as offering invaluable support at what is often a difficult time. People also said the staff are amazing and really positive, allowing you to build up a good relationship with them.

They help people to navigate the system and offer signposting to other organisations. This helps people to regain their independence and enables them to remain at home.

The fact the service is responsive and in-person also makes a big difference, particularly for those who aren’t online. One person said they had recommended it to a friend who has recently come out of hospital.

·         Impact: Without the support of the service they would have struggled to fill in the necessary forms themselves. This means that if funding for the service was reduced people may not find it easy to access the help that is out there, meaning they would miss out on funding that could make a real difference to their daily life and wellbeing.  

So much is online now and the service is vital in making sure those who aren’t digitally included don’t miss out. It is difficult to navigate the system and without the support of this service many people would struggle.

·         Suggestions: Use places like doctors’ surgeries to promote things people are entitled to, like pension credit.

Themes from the St Leonards meeting

·         Views: The vulnerable are always attacked first with cuts and it’s not fair. There are already so many challenges with housing and it affects people’s mental health when fighting for what they need.

The Council needs to remember its duty of care. People pay their tax and national insurance and should be able to expect support when they are older. This service offers a level of support and understanding that isn’t available from statutory services.

·         Service: People praised the service and said it was magnificent. The service is very responsive and the waiting time is much shorter than other services. The support is tailored to you, and they keep you updated.

People talked about how the service has helped them to complete forms and to move from unsafe and unsuitable accommodation to something better. They talked about their struggles dealing with housing services, private landlords and the police, and how those services don’t care or listen.

The service saves money by limiting the support that people need from other services. People value the support it offers to navigate what is a complex system.  

People emphasised how important it is to have the sort of face-to-face support that this service offers, and to not have to talk on the phone or to AI computers. The service has provided invaluable support to people, advocating for them and championing their cause when other services won’t listen.

·         Impacts: People would be stuck living in unsafe housing and be at risk of becoming homeless. If people can’t get the support they need, there would be a risk of people self-harming, and a real risk to life if people are left without this support if the service is reduced.

Reducing the service and not advertising it will cost money in the long term. People won’t have the information they need about what they are entitled to and many would struggle to cope without the help of this service.

·         Suggestions: The service should be promoted better so people know about it.

·         Other: The roads are the worst for potholes and there isn’t enough money to run the Council. Cutting a service like this would have a negative impact on the Council’s reputation.  

 

Themes from the Bexhill meeting

·         Views: People disagree with the proposal and highly value the support provided. They said the proposal is sad and tragic and were concerned about their support and where people would go for help in the future, as they would have been lost without the service.

This service is precious and must be protected. The Council has a duty to support people and this service is key in delivering that duty. The service gets lot of feedback from people saying how much difference it has made to them.

The staff bring in huge amounts of funding into the area through helping people to claim benefits. This money improves lives.

·         Service: The service is amazing and the support it offers mustn’t be lost. It is responsive and people feel really supported by staff. It offers hope at a difficult time and the human contact aspect is so important - both in terms of having home visits, and knowing you can pick up the phone and there will be a voice at the end of the line that’s going to help you.

The service has supported people with advice and advocacy to access financial support, maximising benefits, accessing care, housing and courses, getting ID, opening bank accounts, securing Blue Badges and appealing negative decisions from statutory agencies. Support with form filling – sequencing all of these things together.

·         Impact: People wouldn’t know what they were entitled to in terms of housing and benefits. Other services don’t have any time to help in the way the service does. As a result, people would struggle to fill in forms on their own and navigate what are often complex processes, so may not get the funding and support they need. At a time of housing crisis the service is particularly critical.

Digital inclusion is an issue and it is often the most vulnerable who can’t afford the equipment or internet connection. A big proportion of people who use this service are in this group. If the service is reduced, it would have a big impact on their ability to claim the money they are entitled to.

Other services are already under pressure and if this service is reduced there will often be no alternative for people to get the help they need. People would also wait a lot longer to access help.

The money the service helps to bring into the area through claiming benefits would be lost. It’s important to emphasize that these are benefits that people are entitled to, but the system is set up in a way that makes it hard for them to claim.

·         Suggestion: One person suggested people could pay for the cost of their support. Measuring the impact of the service was proposed, so its value can be evidenced.

 

Themes from the Polegate meeting

·         Views: People disagreed with the proposals and said they were determined to support the service by coming to the meeting. It is a valuable service that is needed and it would be morally wrong to cut it.

·         It makes no sense to reduce this service as it prevents people needing help from other services when they are in crisis. The scale of the proposed reduction is particularly concerning.  

People are concerned about how it would affect those accessing the service, or those who might need to in future. They would be marginalised if the proposal went ahead.  

·         Service: People talked about the challenges of getting hold of other services on the phone, how hard it can be to fill in forms on your own, and how other services don’t support them with their issues in the same way. In contrast, this service was described as wonderful and the staff as so helpful.

People talked about the challenges they have in getting help and understanding financial information. The service helps them to overcome these issues and it achieves this in much shorter timeframes than other services.  

Housing issues are often intertwined with mental health issues. The service deals with the financial side of things first and then supports people to improve their mental wellbeing. This includes establishing a support network for after the service ends for them.

·         Impact: The proposed reduction would completely change the service and severely limit the number of people who could be helped and the amount of time that could be spent with them.

Digital inclusion is a real concern if the service is reduced, as lots of people at the meeting talked about the barriers they face to get help. This includes not being online, but also the issues with using the phone, such as being able to get through and not being able to hear.

There is a risk that fewer people would be able to claim the money they are entitled to including pension credit, attendance allowance and the winter fuel allowance. The systems in place to help people don’t always work, so without this service people would struggle to apply on their own.

Local authorities have a duty to assess and provide services, so cutting the service would affect the Council’s ability to meet that duty. The Council currently refers a lot of people to this service and if they couldn’t do that then more [people] would probably need assessments.

It would also affect the work of the local housing partnership and potentially create a gap in the delivery of this work.

·         Suggestions: Don’t cut such an extreme amount but find a better balance that would allow the work to continue more like it does now. This would give the provider time to explore what they could do to mitigate the funding reduction.  

Themes from the Eastbourne meeting

·         Views: The funding cuts would be bad for East Sussex and services like this could have to close if they are not viable.  

People also talked in detail about the struggles they are already facing to access services such as mental health and housing, and how there is no help available from statutory services in the south east any more.

·         Service: People praised the service and talked about how it had helped them. The staff are key in your life and you remember them many years later. One person said they wouldn’t have their own place or be in full-time employment without the support of the service.

·         Impact: The service might have to close if funding is reduced, If it does stay open, some people would miss out if they did not meet the criteria, as it would become a niche service. People won’t know what they are entitled to in terms of benefits and their lives will be put on hold while they are waiting for support to make applications.

People often find it difficult to explain the issues they are dealing with and without this service they would have to speak to multiple organisations. Other services that can help with similar issues are already overwhelmed and have long waiting times. If you are not IT-literate it is already harder to access support.

It would make it harder for people to get work, as living in temporary accommodation in a hotel is a barrier to employment. Living in temporary accommodation can also be a barrier to people having their children live with them or come to stay.  

Themes from the online meeting

·         Views: The service is often supporting people at the most vulnerable point in life and helps them to overcome the barriers that stop them getting the help they need.

·         Service: People talked about the invaluable help provided by the service and how they wouldn’t have been able to cope without it. The staff are like a helpful friend, helping you to navigate complex systems when you are struggling.

No other services do home visits, so the service is unique from that point of view. It also supports under 18s, which most other services don’t. The work the service does helps the individual’s whole family, with one child sharing how the service has helped her mum find accommodation and made her life better.  

·         Impact: Getting help often requires filling in lots of complex forms. People’s medical condition can make this hard and in some cases impossible. With a reduced service, people who won’t be able to navigate the system on their own will be left without the support they need. People would become more vulnerable as a result.

Most people who use the service are referred by statutory organisations, so if the service is reduced that will increase the pressure on those organisations. People would be homeless without the service and there would be a risk of an increase in suicides as a result.