Review questions 6 and 7: What are the barriers to accessing services for poverty alleviation in RCT and what would work to make these services more welcoming and empowering?

Share Review questions 6 and 7: What are the barriers to accessing services for poverty alleviation in RCT and what would work to make these services more welcoming and empowering? on Facebook Share Review questions 6 and 7: What are the barriers to accessing services for poverty alleviation in RCT and what would work to make these services more welcoming and empowering? on Twitter Share Review questions 6 and 7: What are the barriers to accessing services for poverty alleviation in RCT and what would work to make these services more welcoming and empowering? on Linkedin Email Review questions 6 and 7: What are the barriers to accessing services for poverty alleviation in RCT and what would work to make these services more welcoming and empowering? link

Cliciwch yma am y Gymraeg

Having examined the services delivered in RCT and their uptake rates, this last section utilises professional knowledge and lived experience to identify the barriers to accessing these services and potential opportunities for change. To do this, we used different methods to engage with those living and working within RCT.

To gather professional knowledge evidence, we ran a workshop with the RCT Children, Young People and Families network, co-organised with Interlink RCT (a collaborating partner of the HDRC). This was attended by 22 representatives from community organisations, who provided insight into their experiences supporting families affected by poverty in RCT and where they felt there were opportunities for change.

For lived experience evidence, we employed several different data collection methods. We conducted a survey on the HDRC website including quantitative and qualitative questions, receiving 85 responses. A summary of key findings from the survey can be found in Annex 3. We also conducted in person qualitative interviews and focus groups with service users at community partner organisations Spectacle Theatre, Role Play Lane, and Behaviour Support Hub. At one of these venues, service users were also asked to describe their experiences of accessing services, and suggest improvements by adding post-it notes to a bulletin board. These in person data collection methods reached approximately 25 participants.

These initial data collection methods allowed us to identify key themes from the data. We then sought to explore these themes further at Working Group meetings, where we held three evidence panel sessions, allowing Members to hear directly from those with professional knowledge and lived experience. Two of these focused on professional knowledge evidence, with the first discussing data systems and information sharing and the second focusing on public engagement. Across these sessions, we heard evidence from Officers in the Revenues and Benefits service area and the Housing Strategy team, a colleague from Citizens Advice RCT, and representatives from community partner organisations.

The lived experience session included evidence from a parent of a neurodiverse child who is actively involved in neurodiverse support groups, as well as a resident with no recourse to public funds and a colleague from Y Plant Affricanaidd, a community organisation.

The remainder of this section describes the themes that emerged from the corpus of data collected through the methods described above. Within each theme, we first describe the barriers to accessing services, then focus on the potential opportunities for change.

Awareness of available support

Both lived experience evidence and professional knowledge described that it is difficult for the public to be aware of the many different practical and financial support services on offer. They stated that being aware of different services required “a lot of independent research” and that support was difficult to find. Participants spoke about a mix of how they might find out about available support services, including through word of mouth and using online tools. Given the range of different organisations responsible for administering and delivering support, there was not a single place to identify all the support available. Some participants stated that they currently earned over the threshold required to access most services on offer, but that if their circumstances changed they would not necessarily know how to apply for or access support.

Web searches and Facebook posts and groups were described as a key source of identifying support, though some said they were suspicious that advertisements on social media might be scams. It is perceived that “there is a lot of misinformation around,” and this is perpetuated by misunderstandings about what support is available and how to access it. Similarly, those with no recourse to public funds described a scepticism towards some online information, as individuals believe it could be a “trap” that could subsequently affect their immigration status. A few participants described using online benefits calculators, some of which are promoted by the UK Government, though experiences with these were mixed.

It was suggested that the Council could do more to promote practical and financial support on social media, and compile a list or directory about the services that can be accessed by those living in RCT. Others suggested that school enrolment was a good opportunity to raise awareness of practical and financial support services, especially given the key role of free school meals and the School Essentials Grant.

One participant stated that “interpersonal relationships make the biggest difference as to whether someone accesses support or not.” There were a range of different means through which residents stated they had been informed of what support may be available to them, including through midwives, health visitors, schools, universities, family and friends, and community organisations. These relationships act as a key facilitator in accessing support, and in many cases, go beyond simply signposting and providing advice, but take a “hand holding” role in accessing services too. This was crucial for some participants, with one stating they would have been too embarrassed to access a foodbank had they not had assistance from a health visitor. A lack of trust and perceived stigma was a key issue that stopped people engaging with, applying for, or accessing practical and financial support services, with the voluntary sector often providing a safe and non-stigmatising space. Similarly, Citizens Advice were described as providing a useful independent source of advice and support by multiple participants, but it was acknowledged that opportunities for independent advice such as this are limited by capacity constraints.

There were many suggestions as to how the Council could better utilise the voluntary sector to address barriers to practical and financial support services, with most of these coming from the workshop we held with community organisations. These ideas included training and events for voluntary sector staff, so they know what support is available to families and can signpost effectively, as well as the Council using voluntary sector spaces to provide drop-in services and pop-ups directly to families. It was also suggested that other professionals who have signposting roles could be upskilled, such as midwives and health visitors.

Eligibility criteria

A significant amount of evidence we gathered revolved around the eligibility criteria for many services, and the idea that “lots of people slip through the gaps.” Numerous participants shared the view that families may still be struggling even if they earn over the threshold to access most of the support. Similarly, several participants highlighted the role of in-work poverty in RCT, including the rising costs of housing and everyday essentials, with one participant stating that they were discussing whether to reduce work to qualify for additional support. Others highlighted the “crippling” effects of childcare costs on those in work:

“We are technically over the threshold for most support services, but the cost of childcare means we are financially struggling.”

Similarly, some participants had no recourse to public funds (NRPF). Evidence presented to the Working Group discussed that families with no recourse to public funds may live “hand to mouth” due to high costs of living and minimal available support. While, in theory, many families earn below the required income threshold to access these services, their immigration status makes them ineligible to access much of this. A list of services available for those with NRPF to access could be beneficial both for residents and supporting voluntary sector organisations.

Beyond this, suggestions as to how eligibility criteria could be tackled as a barrier typically discussed the need for the Council to consider its support offer for those who are over the threshold for most services but still struggling. However, it is unclear how this could feasibly be done in practice.

Applying for services

Participants also described the barriers they faced in applying for practical and financial support. Some discussed the lack of in person or walk-in options, highlighting that the Council’s One4All service now required an appointment, and that their own personal circumstances (for example, being a parent of neurodiverse children) meant that existing options were not sufficiently flexible for them. Similarly, the lack of in-person options in the evenings and at weekends mean that they tend to be less accessible to those in work. Providing in-person support beyond typical working hours, and without need for a prior appointment was suggested by participants. It was also suggested that any support on offer needs to be non-judgemental and non-stigmatising, with one person highlighting the Samaritans ‘Working with Compassion’ toolkit and training as a means of doing this.

Others highlighted that the Council’s phone contact centre meant a representative could fill application forms in on the applicant’s behalf, although one participant stated that anxiety meant it was difficult for them to phone or ask for help in person. While there are online forms, participants highlighted these were not always worded straightforwardly, especially for those with dyslexia, and that Council forms could not always be saved and returned to later, meaning they had to be completed all in one go.

Some specific services, such as Free School Meals and the School Essentials Grant, were considered easy to access by a number of participants, especially given that applications for Free School Meals did not need to be resubmitted every year. However, the application processes for other forms of financial support were considered much more difficult, with one participant describing their experience of accessing Council Tax Reduction as “confusing, elongated, and I didn’t know what information needed to be provided.” Similarly, the Heat and Save Grant application from was described as “long and not very easy” but “worth it in the long run due to the savings.”

While the Council is not responsible for Universal Credit, it was described as “[opening] a lot of doors in terms of accessing money and support.” Some described it as “complex to access and understand” and having a significant delay between submitting the application and receiving payment, meaning that, in one case, the participant had to access food banks in the interim.

There were several suggestions in how the Council could change its digital processes to enable easier applications including the ability to save and return to forms, the need for accessibility to be considered at all stages, and improved form design.

Data and information systems

One key barrier to accessing different forms of support related to the sharing of data within and between organisations. Organisations may be aware that a family’s circumstances qualifying them for one service would also allow them to access others, but this passporting does not happen in practice, as they are unable to share the relevant data. As a result, families must repeatedly provide the same supporting documents for multiple applications.

Professional knowledge evidence described an ambition to improve data sharing between organisations and across departments, but that this was constrained by the requirement to obtain consent to do this. However, there were some positive links described by residents, including the ability to identify eligibility for Council Tax Reduction via Universal Credit status, and for the Department for Work and Pensions to share details on behalf of recipients. Similarly, while the Council aims to utilise external data sources to identify those in need and link data at an individual level, there are risks around profiling and expectations that need to be managed.

Citizens Advice highlighted that there were opportunities for closer joint working with the Council, and that the Council could make more proactive referrals to Citizens Advice where they were aware of particular issues from contact with residents. Promoting Citizens Advice or other advice services on Council letters relating to debts or financial support could also offer an independent first point of contact. Multiple respondents also stated that it would be beneficial to access multiple services with a single form, and therefore provide supporting evidence only once.

Key Points

  • Barriers to accessing practical and financial support identified in RCT align with those identified in the academic literature: awareness of provision, stigma, eligibility criteria and digital systems.
  • Residents find it difficult to understand what support exists and how to access it. They often rely on word‑of‑mouth, especially from relationships with trusted professionals. While many described finding information on social media, it can be untrustworthy and incorrect. The voluntary sector plays a key role in providing support to families and offers a key route through which awareness of support services can be raised.
  • Eligibility criteria to access most support services, especially in the public sector, mean that those ineligible for support may still be struggling. It was suggested that the Council could do more to help those earning just more than the threshold, but it is unclear how this could be achieved in practice.
  • Participants described a lack of flexible in-person support, as this is often only available during working hours and may require an appointment. While some services were easy to apply for, others were much more difficult (such as Council Tax Reduction, or energy efficiency schemes). There were several suggestions made as to how the Council could improve the services it administers, both online and in person
  • Limitations in data systems mean that it can be difficult to share data between and within organisations. While there are ambitions within the Council do improve this, it is difficult to realise. However, residents did emphasise the benefits that a single point of contact could provide.


Read the next section: Conclusion


Cliciwch yma am y Gymraeg

Having examined the services delivered in RCT and their uptake rates, this last section utilises professional knowledge and lived experience to identify the barriers to accessing these services and potential opportunities for change. To do this, we used different methods to engage with those living and working within RCT.

To gather professional knowledge evidence, we ran a workshop with the RCT Children, Young People and Families network, co-organised with Interlink RCT (a collaborating partner of the HDRC). This was attended by 22 representatives from community organisations, who provided insight into their experiences supporting families affected by poverty in RCT and where they felt there were opportunities for change.

For lived experience evidence, we employed several different data collection methods. We conducted a survey on the HDRC website including quantitative and qualitative questions, receiving 85 responses. A summary of key findings from the survey can be found in Annex 3. We also conducted in person qualitative interviews and focus groups with service users at community partner organisations Spectacle Theatre, Role Play Lane, and Behaviour Support Hub. At one of these venues, service users were also asked to describe their experiences of accessing services, and suggest improvements by adding post-it notes to a bulletin board. These in person data collection methods reached approximately 25 participants.

These initial data collection methods allowed us to identify key themes from the data. We then sought to explore these themes further at Working Group meetings, where we held three evidence panel sessions, allowing Members to hear directly from those with professional knowledge and lived experience. Two of these focused on professional knowledge evidence, with the first discussing data systems and information sharing and the second focusing on public engagement. Across these sessions, we heard evidence from Officers in the Revenues and Benefits service area and the Housing Strategy team, a colleague from Citizens Advice RCT, and representatives from community partner organisations.

The lived experience session included evidence from a parent of a neurodiverse child who is actively involved in neurodiverse support groups, as well as a resident with no recourse to public funds and a colleague from Y Plant Affricanaidd, a community organisation.

The remainder of this section describes the themes that emerged from the corpus of data collected through the methods described above. Within each theme, we first describe the barriers to accessing services, then focus on the potential opportunities for change.

Awareness of available support

Both lived experience evidence and professional knowledge described that it is difficult for the public to be aware of the many different practical and financial support services on offer. They stated that being aware of different services required “a lot of independent research” and that support was difficult to find. Participants spoke about a mix of how they might find out about available support services, including through word of mouth and using online tools. Given the range of different organisations responsible for administering and delivering support, there was not a single place to identify all the support available. Some participants stated that they currently earned over the threshold required to access most services on offer, but that if their circumstances changed they would not necessarily know how to apply for or access support.

Web searches and Facebook posts and groups were described as a key source of identifying support, though some said they were suspicious that advertisements on social media might be scams. It is perceived that “there is a lot of misinformation around,” and this is perpetuated by misunderstandings about what support is available and how to access it. Similarly, those with no recourse to public funds described a scepticism towards some online information, as individuals believe it could be a “trap” that could subsequently affect their immigration status. A few participants described using online benefits calculators, some of which are promoted by the UK Government, though experiences with these were mixed.

It was suggested that the Council could do more to promote practical and financial support on social media, and compile a list or directory about the services that can be accessed by those living in RCT. Others suggested that school enrolment was a good opportunity to raise awareness of practical and financial support services, especially given the key role of free school meals and the School Essentials Grant.

One participant stated that “interpersonal relationships make the biggest difference as to whether someone accesses support or not.” There were a range of different means through which residents stated they had been informed of what support may be available to them, including through midwives, health visitors, schools, universities, family and friends, and community organisations. These relationships act as a key facilitator in accessing support, and in many cases, go beyond simply signposting and providing advice, but take a “hand holding” role in accessing services too. This was crucial for some participants, with one stating they would have been too embarrassed to access a foodbank had they not had assistance from a health visitor. A lack of trust and perceived stigma was a key issue that stopped people engaging with, applying for, or accessing practical and financial support services, with the voluntary sector often providing a safe and non-stigmatising space. Similarly, Citizens Advice were described as providing a useful independent source of advice and support by multiple participants, but it was acknowledged that opportunities for independent advice such as this are limited by capacity constraints.

There were many suggestions as to how the Council could better utilise the voluntary sector to address barriers to practical and financial support services, with most of these coming from the workshop we held with community organisations. These ideas included training and events for voluntary sector staff, so they know what support is available to families and can signpost effectively, as well as the Council using voluntary sector spaces to provide drop-in services and pop-ups directly to families. It was also suggested that other professionals who have signposting roles could be upskilled, such as midwives and health visitors.

Eligibility criteria

A significant amount of evidence we gathered revolved around the eligibility criteria for many services, and the idea that “lots of people slip through the gaps.” Numerous participants shared the view that families may still be struggling even if they earn over the threshold to access most of the support. Similarly, several participants highlighted the role of in-work poverty in RCT, including the rising costs of housing and everyday essentials, with one participant stating that they were discussing whether to reduce work to qualify for additional support. Others highlighted the “crippling” effects of childcare costs on those in work:

“We are technically over the threshold for most support services, but the cost of childcare means we are financially struggling.”

Similarly, some participants had no recourse to public funds (NRPF). Evidence presented to the Working Group discussed that families with no recourse to public funds may live “hand to mouth” due to high costs of living and minimal available support. While, in theory, many families earn below the required income threshold to access these services, their immigration status makes them ineligible to access much of this. A list of services available for those with NRPF to access could be beneficial both for residents and supporting voluntary sector organisations.

Beyond this, suggestions as to how eligibility criteria could be tackled as a barrier typically discussed the need for the Council to consider its support offer for those who are over the threshold for most services but still struggling. However, it is unclear how this could feasibly be done in practice.

Applying for services

Participants also described the barriers they faced in applying for practical and financial support. Some discussed the lack of in person or walk-in options, highlighting that the Council’s One4All service now required an appointment, and that their own personal circumstances (for example, being a parent of neurodiverse children) meant that existing options were not sufficiently flexible for them. Similarly, the lack of in-person options in the evenings and at weekends mean that they tend to be less accessible to those in work. Providing in-person support beyond typical working hours, and without need for a prior appointment was suggested by participants. It was also suggested that any support on offer needs to be non-judgemental and non-stigmatising, with one person highlighting the Samaritans ‘Working with Compassion’ toolkit and training as a means of doing this.

Others highlighted that the Council’s phone contact centre meant a representative could fill application forms in on the applicant’s behalf, although one participant stated that anxiety meant it was difficult for them to phone or ask for help in person. While there are online forms, participants highlighted these were not always worded straightforwardly, especially for those with dyslexia, and that Council forms could not always be saved and returned to later, meaning they had to be completed all in one go.

Some specific services, such as Free School Meals and the School Essentials Grant, were considered easy to access by a number of participants, especially given that applications for Free School Meals did not need to be resubmitted every year. However, the application processes for other forms of financial support were considered much more difficult, with one participant describing their experience of accessing Council Tax Reduction as “confusing, elongated, and I didn’t know what information needed to be provided.” Similarly, the Heat and Save Grant application from was described as “long and not very easy” but “worth it in the long run due to the savings.”

While the Council is not responsible for Universal Credit, it was described as “[opening] a lot of doors in terms of accessing money and support.” Some described it as “complex to access and understand” and having a significant delay between submitting the application and receiving payment, meaning that, in one case, the participant had to access food banks in the interim.

There were several suggestions in how the Council could change its digital processes to enable easier applications including the ability to save and return to forms, the need for accessibility to be considered at all stages, and improved form design.

Data and information systems

One key barrier to accessing different forms of support related to the sharing of data within and between organisations. Organisations may be aware that a family’s circumstances qualifying them for one service would also allow them to access others, but this passporting does not happen in practice, as they are unable to share the relevant data. As a result, families must repeatedly provide the same supporting documents for multiple applications.

Professional knowledge evidence described an ambition to improve data sharing between organisations and across departments, but that this was constrained by the requirement to obtain consent to do this. However, there were some positive links described by residents, including the ability to identify eligibility for Council Tax Reduction via Universal Credit status, and for the Department for Work and Pensions to share details on behalf of recipients. Similarly, while the Council aims to utilise external data sources to identify those in need and link data at an individual level, there are risks around profiling and expectations that need to be managed.

Citizens Advice highlighted that there were opportunities for closer joint working with the Council, and that the Council could make more proactive referrals to Citizens Advice where they were aware of particular issues from contact with residents. Promoting Citizens Advice or other advice services on Council letters relating to debts or financial support could also offer an independent first point of contact. Multiple respondents also stated that it would be beneficial to access multiple services with a single form, and therefore provide supporting evidence only once.

Key Points

  • Barriers to accessing practical and financial support identified in RCT align with those identified in the academic literature: awareness of provision, stigma, eligibility criteria and digital systems.
  • Residents find it difficult to understand what support exists and how to access it. They often rely on word‑of‑mouth, especially from relationships with trusted professionals. While many described finding information on social media, it can be untrustworthy and incorrect. The voluntary sector plays a key role in providing support to families and offers a key route through which awareness of support services can be raised.
  • Eligibility criteria to access most support services, especially in the public sector, mean that those ineligible for support may still be struggling. It was suggested that the Council could do more to help those earning just more than the threshold, but it is unclear how this could be achieved in practice.
  • Participants described a lack of flexible in-person support, as this is often only available during working hours and may require an appointment. While some services were easy to apply for, others were much more difficult (such as Council Tax Reduction, or energy efficiency schemes). There were several suggestions made as to how the Council could improve the services it administers, both online and in person
  • Limitations in data systems mean that it can be difficult to share data between and within organisations. While there are ambitions within the Council do improve this, it is difficult to realise. However, residents did emphasise the benefits that a single point of contact could provide.


Read the next section: Conclusion


Page last updated: 18 Mar 2026, 02:21 PM