More than two thirds of people say they are personally concerned with the problems of people with multiple needs and exclusions, according to new YouGov polling presented by Peter Kellner in a Fabian Policy Report, 'Hardest to Reach'. The pamphlet, which looks at policies to improve the lives of people who experience a combination of issues including homelessness, substance misuse, mental ill health and who are often serving short-term prison sentences, has contributions from across the political spectrum, including from Iain Duncan Smith of the Centre for Social Justice, Alasdair Murray from CentreForum and former social exclusion minister Hilary Armstrong.

There is public support if we get this right

Peter Kellner

While politicians have sometimes shied away from tackling the most entrenched issues around people with multiple needs, new YouGov polling – conducted for this pamphlet – shows that the public are very concerned about this group and think government has a responsibility to make a difference. Politicians should stop being nervous of public opinion – and embrace people’s desire for real change.

Should we – society, taxpayers, government – do more to help people with multiple needs? At a time when pressure on public spending is likely to be acute for some years (whoever is in power at Westminster) can a case be made for increasing support for those affected by a combination of problems such as homelessness, mental ill-health, offending, drug addiction and alcoholism?

Our new data suggests that the answer is “yes”; or, rather, “yes, if”.  Most of the public believe that better services for people with multiple needs can be regarded as a form of investment: more coordinated services now would save later on or help individuals contribute more to society. Government interventions presented in this way would receive good levels of public support.

First, we set out the meaning of ’multiple needs and exclusions‘ and how men and women affected by them “often end up sleeping rough or ‘recycling’ between prison and the community”. Two-thirds of the public say they are personally concerned about people with such problems. Perhaps a more relevant number is the 21 per cent who say they are “very concerned”: this is probably a better measure of real public concern. So while it is not a majority passion there are significant levels of concern from the public for individuals in this group.

When asked how concerned “society generally” should be, the total saying “very” or “fairly” concerned jumps to 85 per cent, with 37 per cent saying “very concerned” – again, a minority but, this time, a rather larger minority.
And how concerned do you think society generally should be about the problems of such people?

So public concern exists, but it would still be relatively easy for any government to ignore the issue and hope it will go away, which, of course, it won’t. Suppose ministers and other politicians took a long view and decided that for social and economic reasons they must act. At a time when every penny of public spending must be justified, could they persuade the electorate of the case for giving a priority to the task of tackling multiple needs?

YouGov’s poll suggests that they could. While the public are hardly clamouring for action (indeed, we usually find that when they are asked to identify the main cause of problems faced by the most marginalised, they see a mix of factors and sometimes blame the people themselves) it is also clear they won’t stand in the way of change. They can see what the benefits of action would be. Six out of ten electors agree that if the government and local services did more to help people with multiple needs and exclusions “the individuals would be able to contribute more to society”. By more than six-to-one they outnumber those who say “I do not think any benefits would result”. It is widely thought that society would benefit in a number of other ways too: the people themselves would be able to contribute more (58%), fewer crimes would be committed (50%), local communities would be stronger (32%) and the cycle of despair would be broken, with fewer people in future facing multiple needs and exclusions (40%). These figures show a snapshot of public opinion as it currently stands – in the absence of any sustained local or national government initiative to tackle these problems. Were such an initiative to be launched, the numbers anticipating a positive impact would be expected to rise.

It is interesting that ‘future contribution’ tops the table of perceived benefits of action, for we know that this is also what often drives sympathy towards this group. Previous work by YouGov for the Fabian Society found that a belief that those receiving help would go on to contribute more to society in the future was the single biggest factor in influencing support for welfare. It was a much more powerful driver of attitudes to welfare than beliefs about how people got into difficulties in the first place. People can be prepared to forgive past behaviour if someone is genuinely trying now.
And key here was an individual’s intentions; not how much they could put back into society, but that they were prepared to try.

So it’s no surprise the factors that our latest polling finds most effective for increasing sympathy towards those with multiple needs are beliefs that the person is ‘motivated to improve their situation’ or concrete demonstration of good intentions (‘if they had looked for help and not found it’). Demonstrating that those receiving help are taking it in good faith and showing that people do go on to contribute to society in whatever way they find possible can therefore be a powerful driver of public support for assistance.

There is a strong view that government and local services currently have a disjointed approach for this group and that a stronger focus would help improve situations for people with multiple needs and exclusions.
Overall, it is clear that voters are far more likely to welcome than resist any plans to address multiple needs and exclusions more ambitiously.