Delivery of voluntary advice services

A Department for Social Development consultation

April 2006

Introduction

Law Centre (NI) is a voluntary organisation providing legal and other support services including training, publications and information to 80 full time members and almost 400 associate members.  Full members consist of local CAB and independent advice agencies and other voluntary organisations who provide advice as part of their overall function.  Associate members include solicitors, trade unions, political parties, probation and social services offices and community based organisations including tenants associations.  The Law Centre provides an advice line and casework service on referral to its members in the areas of social security, social services, immigration and employment law.  The Law Centre has also recently received funding to develop a mental health advice service and a dedicated policy development unit.

In 2004/2005 the Law Centre dealt with over 6,000 enquiries opened around 400 new cases and provided representation at courts and tribunals on more than 300 occasions.

The Law Centre’s role is to support the work of voluntary sector and other advisers.  To this end, we run a training programme for new and experienced advisers including training on tribunal representation and a Welfare Rights Adviser Programme accredited by the Northern Ireland Open College Network. 

The Law Centre also produces a range of publications to support our member agencies work.  These include Frontline - a quarterly legal and policy journal, casework bulletins, and other publications (at present, for example, we are working on producing booklets on rights of migrant workers in partnership with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, a third edition of Rights in Progress : a guide to the Human Rights Act for advisers and a book on employment law in Northern Ireland to be published by Queens University Servicing the Legal System).  In addition, practitioner fora are run in each of the areas the Law Centre is involved in.  This entails bringing advisers together on a regular basis to ensure there is an effective link between Law Centre advisers and other advisers actively involved in the same areas of work

The Law Centre works towards improving the lives of disadvantaged individuals and communities through a strategic approach to casework including developing a test case strategy and by tying service delivery to lobbying and campaigning for improvements to policy, practice and legislation.

We also work closely with Adviceⁿⁱ  and Citizen Advice Northern Ireland as part of the Advice Services Alliance to lobby for the needs of the sector as a whole.

Initial overview

The Law Centre welcomes the Department’s initiative to set out a strategy for advice and information services.  It is the first time such a document has been produced by a government department in Northern Ireland.  The strategy and consultation process provides an opportunity for the advice sector to become involved in shaping its future.  We recognise that if the strategy had not been produced the advice sector would have been facing significant change in any event because of the Review of Public Administration.

In effect, the strategy concentrates on local advice services rather than examining regional advice services, specialist services and support organisations in great depth.  Given the changes to local public administration we understand why local advice services predominate, nonetheless, it will be important to keep a close eye on the relationship between local and regional advice and support services as the strategy unfolds.

We also think it would be particularly helpful to continue to set out a number of underlying principles as benchmarks to measure progress as the strategy develops.  In particular, we would suggest such benchmarks could include that the strategy will: 

	build on the strengths of the existing advice networks and recognise the need for some diversity of provision;
	create greater financial security and stability for advice services and enhance the recruitment and retention of effective staff;
	provide room for innovation in meeting the needs of those seeking advice;
	promote quality and enhance ways of measuring the impact of advice services on people who use the services;
	recognise  the value and importance of advice services to local communities in Northern Ireland;
	enhance  a joined up approach to advice services within government and elsewhere;
	ensure money invested in the sector is used wisely and to the best effect in meeting people’s needs.

This list is not exhaustive but is intended to give a sense of the sort of principles which should underpin the strategy.  Setting out these principles will be helpful as part of the overall message that the strategy seeks to provide the best possible service to people in need of advice and support.

Key issues

(i)  hubs and satellites

In our view, the model is an appropriate one subject to flexibilities outlined within our submission.  The nomenclature of hubs and satellites has unnerved the sector.  In effect, it has given an inadvertent impression of a small number of area hubs developing and expanding services while local satellites wither on the vine.  A new name for the architecture is needed, for example, we would prefer area hubs and local core services which suggests a model closer to what we believe is being sought.  The sector has also been disturbed by the lack of detail on the relationship between local core services and area hubs and also between area hubs, local core advice services and their regional support agencies.  As a result, we believe that there should be more than one pilot so that arrangements where an area hub is a Citizen Advice Bureaux and another which is an independent advice centre can be explored.  We also endorse the recommendation from the meeting of council officials and elected representatives that expressions of interest be sought from all local councils in advance of taking any decision on location of pilots.

We accept and see the logic in recognising that outcomes from the Review of Public Administration (RPA) will strongly influence the location of area hubs in the strategy.  However, we would caution against a rigid adherence to the RPA outcomes.  By this we mean the Department should retain some flexibility for example, there may be a case for more than one area hub in a super council area particularly where the new council areas cover a very wide geographical boundary.  We therefore recommend that the Department signals such flexibility where there is a strong case to delivery the strategy by adapting the RPA outcomes in order to ensure the most effective delivery of local advice services.

The strategy outlines that high level specialised advice and information services should only be provided at a regional level with appropriate referral mechanisms locally.  Though not explicit, we read into the strategy that area hubs (in particular) and local core services will adapt to meet the needs of specific interest groups (minority ethnic communities, people with disabilities, older people, children, women and others).  We see merit to this approach but, would caution against underestimating the need for some special interest services at a local level.  By way of illustration we think that some advice services in minority ethnic and migrant worker communities will remain appropriate at a local level particularly where located as part of a wider local service.

In some cases, specific interest services could be operated by a regional organisation through outreach, in partnership with an area hub, by an area hub itself or by an existing local specialist provider.  There are a variety of models that can be used and we believe the strategy should be not unduly prescriptive.  In effect, we would expect to see area hubs being funded sufficiently to adapt its services to meet specific interest needs and reduce the requirement for parallel services.  At the same time, we also expect some specific interest services to still operate at a local level where the case is made that this is the most appropriate and effective way to meet needs.

We particularly welcome the acknowledgement of the value of advice services in tackling disadvantage in local communities.  The focus on ensuring effective delivery of advice services in neighbourhood renewal areas is welcome.  There has been considerable work done on the positive link between effective advice and urban regeneration in Britain.[1]  We think that these types of initiatives can be built on in Northern Ireland and we would welcome further detail on how this might happen in practice.     

We think there is a particular need to strengthen advice provision within Belfast.  As a regional centre the city serves a population seeking advice beyond its council boundaries and this is likely to continue to be the case even after the RPA recommendations are implemented.  Compared to similar regional centres in Britain (for example Newcastle, Norwich, Glasgow and Bristol) Belfast is relatively poorly served by the advice services.  We would recommend the Department convene a working party with the City Council and local providers to examine the best way to deliver services from Belfast.  The working party could examine models in other cities including one stop shop central provision in Norwich and other initiatives as possible models to follow or adapt.

(ii) Mapping, Resourcing and Monitoring

A mapping of existing provision makes immense sense and is long overdue.  The Department will be able to build on existing work being done by the Legal Services Commission.  A mapping exercise encompassing both the voluntary advice sector, local solicitors and other providers of independent advice (for example, Equality, Human Rights and Children and Young Persons Commissions) would be immensely valuable.  In our view this piece of work should be combined with an up-dated examination of the resources going into the sector locally and regionally.  Our assessment is that the figures used in the consultation document may already have been overtaken by events.  We would commend a partnership approach to this work with the Legal Services Commission.

Recent research has also been undertaken into the extent of legal need by the Legal Services Commission.[2]  This research was the first attempt to measure the demand for legal advice services in Northern Ireland and was an important snapshot of legal need.  In our view this type of research should be followed up on a periodic basis to chart changes to legal need.  This has been done for England and Wales and we would recommend a research partnership with the Legal Services Commission to ensure the contemporary evidence on the extent and type of legal need is maintained

At this point it is difficult to be specific about the level of additional resourcing needed to ensure the strategy delivers a coherent service ensuring reasonable access to effective and good quality local, regional and specialist advice services.  It is clear that significant additional monies will be required.  We believe the additional resources should come from across government departments and through establishing partnerships with other appropriate interested organisations including, for example, the Legal Services Commission and Big Lottery Fund.  To this end we welcome the establishment of the Government Advice and Information group and would suggest that its membership include the new commissioning authority for health and social services, the Legal Services Commission and Big Lottery Fund.  We would recommend the Advice and Information group should explore how these organisations and the new health and social services trusts can make a distinct contribution to complement and enhance the development of the strategy.  The Department could for example explore the idea of an Advice Innovation Fund with the Big Lottery.  Moreover, we would also recommend the group looks at arrangements for liaison with the sector once its work commences.  We would therefore suggest the Department discusses this issue with the Advice Services Alliance at an early stage.

A particularly difficult issue down the track will be the process for selecting area hubs and local core services.  One option will be to simply let the market decide through competitive tendering.  This is superficially attractive inasmuch as it provides a ‘hands off’ approach from the Department once the criteria for any tender process has been agreed and allows new councils to consider voluntary sector, private and even in-house providers.  A second option is to signal an intention to explore a more collaborative, partnership approach, building on the work of existing providers.  With the exception of Belfast, Derry and one or two other areas there is not a multiplicity of local generalist providers of advice in towns in Northern Ireland.  Negotiating the location of area hubs and local core advice services within the framework of the RPA with provision for flexibility where appropriate should be possible.  Detailed arrangements on how this would work in practice in conjunction with new councils, current providers and their regional organisations will need to be fleshed out.  Our preference is to explore this collaborative option.  The alternative market led approach will ask providers and their support organisations to compete and then, almost immediately to collaborate.  This requires a level of sophistication, cohesion and security which does not currently exist in the sector.  As a result we would recommend exploring alternatives to competitive tendering to decide where area hubs and local core services be located.

(iii) Training, quality and IT

The Law Centre, Citizen Advice and Adviceⁿⁱ all provide training to the voluntary advice sector.  Although the overlap in practice is relatively limited there is undoubtedly a need to improve co-ordination between all three organisations to ensure existing resources are deployed as effectively as possible.  In particular, there is scope to work together to produce common training materials and a joint training approach to major new policy areas (for example, new welfare to work arrangements and incapacity benefit reform likely to roll out during 2008).  Initial discussions within the Advice Services Alliance suggested a working party of training officers from the three member agencies should be set up with the authority and mandate to draw up proposals to improve co-ordination and minimise unnecessary duplication.  The Law Centre endorses this approach and will work to ensure any forthcoming proposals are implemented.  The Department should ask the Alliance to report on the outcome of this initiative.

The Law Centre is already aware of the extensive strides that have been made on quality within the sector.  Both Citizen Advice and Adviceⁿⁱ have membership schemes and models which require demonstration of quality.  External benchmarks have also been embraced.  The Law Centre is about to seek renewal of Investors in People status and has recently been assessed for the Lexcel standard and is awaiting accreditation approval from the Law Society.  In light of developments in the sector we think the most appropriate way forward would be for the Department to undertake or commission an audit of existing quality standards, identify gaps and recommend what further developments would be appropriate.  In particular, this could encompass examining current ways in which user feedback is sought and actual quality of advice, casework and advocacy is measured.  This recommendation builds on existing strengths and could be undertaken over a fairly short timescale.

There has been substantial investment on IT within the sector.  Both Citizen Advice and Adviceⁿⁱ members have been involved in innovative and cutting edge developments in this field.  In many respects the use of IT within the advice sector is ahead of developments anywhere else in these islands.  We think it is both fair and reasonable that the Department wants to obtain common standards of case recording management information and other statistical information to be able to properly measure the work of advice organisations across both the independent advice and Citizen Advice sector.  At present, the Law Centre is unconvinced that the only way to guarantee this is through a common casework recording system.  The approach suggested in the consultation document entails effectively writing off of a substantial financial investment in either the AIMS or CAMRA system.  We would only accept such an outcome if it was clear that there was no other way of guaranteeing that the Department’s needs could be met.  As a result, we would recommend that a technical review be commissioned or conducted by the Department to set out in precise terms the information needed by the Department and whether the two existing systems can deliver what is needed.  In the absence of any such compatibility we would then accept the need for a single IT based management information system within the sector.

The role of the Advice Services Allianc

The strategy envisages a pivotal role for the Advice Services Alliance in working with the Department to deliver the strategy.  The consultation document recognises the need to look at the resource needs of the Alliance.  The Alliance has struggled to work cohesively together in the past.  Nevertheless, it has been able to work together to agree funding for Welfare Reform Modernisation with the Social Security Agency and partnership funding for tax credit initiatives.  This work has not however, been without its difficulties.  One of the problems facing the Alliance has been an expectation of close collaboration within a competitive funding environment.  Legitimate but, different views are held within the Alliance about the extent to which co-operation is possible in this type of environment.  Paradoxically, the strategy could exacerbate this tension.  For example, the Department seeks leadership, cohesion and effective partnership working from the Alliance to assist in delivering the strategy while also potentially heightening competition locally.  In our view, the level of co-operation required in the Alliance could not be sustained if a full competitive model is embarked on to determine the location of area hubs and local core services.  It is with this in mind that we have earlier recommended exploring ways other than competitive tendering to determine the new configuration of local advice services within the strategy.

We believe there is other work that can be delivered by the Alliance for example, an up-date of the quality standards document produced in 1992, and improvement in co-ordination in delivery of training services.

The Law Centre has found it invaluable to have an independent chair and also access to an external facilitator as the ASA has worked towards developing a shared view on the strategy.  In our view, the ASA will require sufficient funding to retain and pay an independent chair, engage external assistance to undertake particular pieces of work within the strategy and to pay for an appropriate level of administrative support.  Financial support for this range of activities would be more appropriate than funding for specific posts.  We would also recommend keeping the financial needs of the ASA under annual review.

Conclusion

The Law Centre welcomes the Department’s strategy and our submission seeks to constructively support how the Department can carry forward the strategy.  While we have not answered the questions set out in the consultation document we have offered  views on the issues underpinning the questions.  The Law Centre will continue to actively engage in the strategy as high quality local advice services are essential to the effective delivery of our own services through a membership based model.

Summary of recommendations

The Department should continue to develop underlying principles as benchmarks for progress as the strategy unfolds.

	the area hubs and local satellite nomeclature should be changed to area hubs and local core advice services;
	the area hub and local core advice services is an appropriate model for the strategy;
	the strategy should substantially follow the RPA developments but, also leave room for flexibility where appropriate;
	there should be more than one pilot for an area hub;
	expression of interest should be sought from local councils before the location of pilots is determined;
	particular attention should be paid to development of advice services in Belfast and the Department should set up a working group to examine future advice provision for Belfast;
	a partnership should be sought with the Legal Services Commission to map legal advice services and periodically review legal need through research;
	the Legal Services Commission, Big Lottery Fund and the commissioning health and social services authority should be invited to join the government advice and information group;
	the Department should engage with the Advice Services Alliance at an early stage on liaison arrangements with the government advice and information group;
	alternatives to competitive tendering should be explored to determine the location of area hubs and local core services
	the Advice Services Alliance should be charged with reporting on how co-ordination of training services can be improved and unnecessary duplication eliminated;
	an audit of quality standards should be conducted or commissioned by the Department with a view to recommending future developments;
	a technical review of IT provision in the sector should be undertaken or commissioned by the Department to see if its own management information and statistical needs can be met within existing IT systems;
	the Advice Services Alliance should be resourced to retain its independent chair, engage external consultancy to strengthen its working arrangements, work on specific projects and to provide appropriate administrative support.