X/Polls/Surveys #AccessAble

POLL FIVE FEEDBACK: Thank you to everyone who took the time to reply, quote, or share their thoughts and experiences on last week's poll. I'm actively collating all comments, suggestions, and international examples to build a clear picture of how we can fix the adult social care postcode lottery.

Key results so far:

• The poll voting buttons did not work properly for many people (multiple DMs and replies confirmed choices were not registering). We are therefore relying on direct replies and feedback.

• Option A (Introduce national minimum standards and funding formulas) received strong support. Several people said this is essential to end the postcode lottery.

• Option C (Ring-fence a bigger national social care budget) and Option D (Shift more funding toward prevention and community support) were the most frequently chosen combination. Multiple replies explicitly said “C & D” or “A and C”.

• Option B (Give more power and money directly to local councils) received no support in replies. Several people specifically argued against it, stating it would make the postcode lottery worse.

• International models were highlighted as useful references, particularly the Netherlands system (universal public insurance, Buurtzorg self-managing neighbourhood teams, strong “aging in place” focus, and integrated needs-based assessment).

Common themes raised in replies:

• The postcode lottery is real and deeply unfair: the level, speed, and quality of support depends far more on where you live than on actual need.

• Current means-testing is punitive (assets over £23,250 usually means you pay everything yourself; the family home often counts as an asset). This creates major inequities, especially compared to Scotland’s free personal care approach.

• Prevention and community-based support (including models like Buurtzorg) are seen as vital to reduce crisis care, improve quality of life, and control long-term costs.

• Pure localism without national minimum standards and ring-fenced funding simply entrenches postcode variation. National standards + national funding + local delivery is the combination most people want.

• Overall agreement that the current system penalises people for needing care and fails to properly support families or promote independence at home.

All replies, quotes, suggestions, and the international examples shared are being logged and will be analysed. I will be feeding the collated results into the Advance UK Forum for proper consideration in social care and related policy development. Thank you again, your input is really valuable and is helping shape practical, evidence-based ideas.

POLL FOUR FEEDBACK: Thank you to everyone who took the time to reply, quote, or share their experiences on this poll. I'm actively collating all comments, personal stories, and suggestions to build a clear picture of the real issues with home care services right now.

Key results so far:

• The overwhelming majority of replies highlighted that all options (A, B, C, and D) are major, interconnected problems with several respondents explicitly stating “all of them” as the core issue. No single option stood out alone; instead, replies emphasised how inadequate training, insufficient hours, high turnover/lack of continuity, and poor funding reinforce each other.

• Additional real-world barriers were raised beyond the poll options, including language and nationality/cultural barriers (carers sometimes unable to communicate effectively with patients), rigid or unreliable time windows, unknown faces for personal care, and basic tasks left incomplete due to time pressure.

• Option A (Inadequate staff training for complex disabilities had the most votes) calls for better specialist training (dementia, learning disabilities, moving & handling, etc.) and even basic standards (cleaning, manners, cultural sensitivity).

• Suggestions for improvement focused heavily on systemic fixes: higher salaries to attract and retain quality UK-trained staff, more comprehensive training and supervision, stricter background checks, fewer clients per carer/shift, and even proposals like video recording of visits for accountability.

Common themes raised in replies:

• Interconnected/overlapping failures: almost every reply described the issues as a “perfect storm” where low funding leads to rushed visits, poor pay drives high turnover and inexperienced staff, and inadequate training/continuity leaves vulnerable people (disabled and elderly) at risk.

• Real-life impact: rushed, impersonal care; language barriers affecting communication and safety; families left frustrated and unsupported; good UK-trained nurses unable to get into the sector because pay and conditions are unattractive.

• Need for genuine reform: calls for a complete overhaul that addresses pay, training, staffing ratios, and accountability together rather than isolated tweaks. Emphasis on attracting reliable, English-speaking, properly qualified carers who can build continuity of care.

Next steps & what happens with your feedback:

All replies, quotes, and suggestions are being logged and will be analysed together with any future poll data or input. I will be feeding the collated results into the Advance UK Forum to refer to the team for proper consideration in their welfare and social care strategy. Keep sharing your thoughts; every comment helps build a stronger, evidence-based picture. Thank you again! #AccessAble #AUKF #HomeCare #SocialCareReform

POLL THREE FEEDBACK: Thank you to everyone who took the time to reply, quote, or share their experiences on this poll. I’m actively collating all comments, personal stories, and suggestions to build a clear picture of the real issues with how “disability” is understood and assessed in the UK today.

Key results so far:

• Option C (Assessments don’t properly account for how different disabilities affect daily life) is the most frequently highlighted single issue. Multiple replies called this the biggest problem, pointing to inconsistent decisions, lack of common sense by assessors, and quotas that override evidence.  

• Option A (Too narrow, excludes many fluctuating or invisible conditions) has had explicit support, commenters noted it fails people with non-obvious or variable conditions.  

• Option D (Public and employer attitudes don’t match the legal definition) was paired with C by several people as a major ongoing barrier. New comments highlighted a common employer claim that “insurance is too high to employ disabled people” as a real perceived barrier.  

• Option B (Too broad, makes the system unsustainable and dilutes support for severe cases) was raised; specifically flagging problems with self-diagnosis diluting resources.  

• Additional C and A responses received via DM.  

• Compromise approach: Several replies emphasised that the issues overlap and no single option captures everything. Many called for a broader “overhaul and reset” that addresses multiple flaws together rather than picking one. One recent reply summed it up as “all of the above, with D being the smallest figure of the 4” and stressed that “companies really need to make more effort going forward.”

Common themes raised in replies:

• Broken assessment & appeals process: Strongest theme overall. High success rate at tribunal (often cited as 70% of PIP appeals won on the same evidence), assessors working to quotas, refusal of lifelong conditions at renewal, and unnecessary stress/cost.  

• Reassessing stable lifelong conditions is seen as costly and counterproductive. Transition problems (e.g. DLA to PIP at 16) create extra barriers.  

• Real-life impact: Stories of solid evidence being ignored, fluctuating/invisible conditions being dismissed, and a general lack of nuance in how disabilities affect day-to-day life.  

• Employer attitudes & insurance myth: Multiple people noted companies quoting high insurance costs as a reason not to hire disabled people. A detailed response clarified that Employers’ liability insurance is based on industry risk, payroll and claims history – not on hiring disabled staff. There is no automatic loading for disability. Disabled employees often show higher retention, loyalty and lower turnover. Adjustments via Access to Work average £300–£500 with Government covering extra costs. Strong call to bust this myth and encourage employers to make more effort.  

• Need for genuine reform: Calls for thorough but realistic changes that meet genuine needs without creating new problems for individuals or the state. Frustration that the current system is inefficient, unfair, and fails both claimants and sustainability.

Next steps & what happens with your feedback:

All replies, quotes, and suggestions are being logged and will be analysed together with any future poll data or input. I will be feeding the collated results into the Advance UK Forum to refer to the team for proper consideration in their welfare and disability strategy. Keep sharing your thoughts; every comment helps build a stronger, evidence-based picture. Thank you again! #AccessAble #AUKF #Disability #WelfareReform

POLL TWO FEEDBACK: Thank you to everyone who has taken the time to reply, quote, or share their experiences on this poll. I’m actively collating all comments, personal stories, and suggestions to build a clear picture of the real issues with how “disability” is understood and assessed in the UK today.

Key results so far:

• Option C (Assessments don’t properly account for how different disabilities affect daily life) is the most frequently highlighted single issue. Multiple replies called this the biggest problem, pointing to inconsistent decisions, lack of common sense by assessors, and quotas that override evidence.  

• Option A (Too narrow, excludes many fluctuating or invisible conditions) had explicit support, with one voter selecting it directly. Commenters noted it fails people with non-obvious or variable conditions.  

• Option D (Public and employer attitudes don’t match the legal definition) was paired with C by several people as a major ongoing barrier.  

• Option B (Too broad, makes the system unsustainable and dilutes support for severe cases) was raised by one commenter who specifically flagged problems with self-diagnosis diluting resources.

• Compromise approach: Several replies emphasised that the issues overlap and no single option captures everything. Many called for a broader “overhaul and reset” that addresses multiple flaws together rather than picking one.

Common themes raised in replies: 

• Broken assessment & appeals process; Strongest theme overall. High success rate at tribunal (often cited as 70% of PIP appeals won on the same evidence), assessors working to quotas, refusal of lifelong conditions at renewal, and unnecessary stress/cost.  

• Reassessing stable lifelong conditions is seen as costly and counterproductive. Transition problems (e.g. DLA to PIP at 16) create extra barriers.  

• Real-life impact; Stories of solid evidence being ignored, fluctuating/invisible conditions being dismissed, and a general lack of nuance in how disabilities affect day-to-day life.  

• Need for genuine reform; Calls for thorough but realistic changes that meet genuine needs without creating new problems for individuals or the state. Frustration that the current system is inefficient, unfair, and fails both claimants and sustainability.

Next steps & what happens with your feedback:

All replies, quotes, and suggestions are being logged and will be analysed together with any future poll data or input. I will be feeding the collated results into the Advance UK Forum to refer to the team for proper consideration in their welfare and disability strategy. Keep sharing your thoughts; every comment helps build a stronger, evidence-based picture. Thank you again! #AccessAble #AUKF #Disability #WelfareReform

POLL ONE FEEDBACK: Thank you to everyone who has taken the time to reply, quote, or share their experiences on this poll. I’m actively collating all comments, personal stories, and suggestions to build a clear picture of what unpaid carers and their families actually need.

Key results so far:

• Option B (higher work allowance/earnings disregard for carers on Universal Credit) is the most popular single choice so far.

• Option A (decouple benefits so Carer’s Allowance / UC carer element no longer removes the Severe Disability Premium) had very strong support, especially from full-time live-in carers who described losing the premium as a major blow.

• Option D (automatic recognition + better NI credits / pension protection) several people highlighted this as important for long-term fairness.

• Option C (earnings taper instead of cliff-edge cut-off) positive mentions, with one reply saying “everything should be tapered”.

• Compromise approach, several people (including those voting B) said the best way forward is a mix, especially A + B together, so both full-time non-working carers and those who can manage some paid work are properly supported.

Common themes raised in replies:

• Real-life carer stories (live-in, 24/7 caring, confusion over eligibility even when the cared-for person is on PIP daily living only).

• Wider UC and pension disincentives (state pension treated as income that wipes out UC; private pensions treated as earnings).

• Frustration that family care is penalised when it is far cheaper and often better quality than local-authority home care.

• Overall agreement that the current rules punish people for “doing the right thing”.

Next steps & what happens with your feedback: 

All replies, quotes, and suggestions are being logged and will be analysed together with any future poll data. I will be feeding the collated results into the Advance UK Forum to refer to the college for proper consideration in their welfare and disability strategy.