Opinions on the DSD strategy for the voluntary advice sector

Les Allamby of Law Centre (NI), Derek Alcorn of Citizens Advice and Bob Stronge of adviceni, look ahead to the reshaping of the sector envisaged in the strategy, with a mixture of hope and trepidation.

Interesting times for the advice sector

Derek Alcorn, Chief Executive, Citizens Advice

Whatever doubts people have about the DSD Advice and Information strategy, it represents an enormous achievement to have reached the point where government is addressing advice provision within the framework of a strategy. For the first time in thirty years, this forces government to define what outcomes it wants for the money which it is spending on advice. It needs to examine social need, population patterns and its own role as a funder. There are no similar strategies for agencies involved with age or disability issues for example, and the development is a tribute to all the people who have contributed to the development of advice provision over the past thirty years, mostly in circumstances of considerable underfunding.

With the Review of Public Administration as a backdrop, the advice sector is going to be reshaped over the next three to five years, as new councils emerge. The strategy also needs to be taken in the context of the government funding database, designed to prevent duplication of funding, and a more streamlined approach between government and significant funders such as the Big Lottery. DSD’s declared strategy is to draw in funding streams from other government departments, and inevitably other key agencies such as the Legal Services Commission will also coordinate their funding into the framework which has been created.

The strategy is principally about the funding of local generalist advice provision, and it should be seen as something which will grow and develop rather than as something which will remain as outlined in the consultation document. Much of this will depend on how well and hard DSD and the inter-departmental committee drive it forward. Already issues are emerging form the first consultation discussion. The new councils will have a 300k population base, could we consider one hub per 100k of population, giving three per Council area? Do we need an up to date estimate of the demand for advice? Equally we may need an up to date estimate of the funding base of the sector, since the DSD’s estimates differ widely from the NICVA State of Sector figures in the February edition of SCOPE.

Against a lot of odds, the advice sector has emerged as a potential key partner in the delivery of public services, a role emphasised in late February in a speech by David Milliband. I believe that part of the reason for this is the particular business model of the sector with its emphasis on face to face advice for socially vulnerable people and the ability to deliver holistic advice, underpinned by a commitment to social justice. In many ways, having lost aspects of this in the public service, the government seems to be preparing to buy it in.

Rationalisation could be at the expense of frontline agencies

Bob Stronge, Director of adviceni

The DSD advice and information strategy puts forward a model based on area hubs which would provide a comprehensive range of advice services, incorporating between four and eight advisers, linked to satellite, outreach, home-visits and e-access provision. It states that 80% of the population should live within five miles of the hubs with referral mechanisms to specialist organisations and that ‘the number, location and size of hubs will be based on need, taking account of deprivation, population size and overall level of funding available’.

Taking into account the Review of Public Administration (RPA), one vision based on the strategy would be of seven advice hubs with various outreach provisions. Given that there are currently 28 main Citizens Advice outlets and over 70 providers within the adviceni network, it would require a level of rationalisation unprecedented in the history of the sector. It could have a detrimental impact on service users in terms of accessibility, choice and responsiveness to local need. It also has the potential to be deeply divisive.

Another type of vision based on the strategy would be of a joined up infrastructure which values the targeted nature of current provision. The emphasis would be on advice which targets need and provides services to the ‘hard to reach’. This would maximise access for users whilst introducing greater coordination and planning and foster improved relationships between advice providers.
The strategy attempts to address the issue of longer-term sustainability for the sector. However, despite the minister’s announcement of extra funding, it does not address how the proposed changes are going to be properly resourced. The funds announced have been largely offset by an end, in March of this year, to Welfare Reform funding amounting to over £600,000. The strategy estimates the cost of frontline generalist advice provision (excluding specialist providers and regional support organisations) at £4 million per year. Funding from councils for generalist advice provision amounts to around £1.8 million. The other £2.2 million come from a variety of sources, including health trusts and charitable trusts. The strategy estimates a future gap of £1.5 million for frontline advice and proposes alternative sources of additional funding, including:

• from councils, following reorganisation under the RPA;
• from the Legal Services Commission as a result of legal aid reform;
• through other government departments and agencies buying in advice services;
• from other sectors including the finance sector regarding money and debt advice.

It must be asked how realistic it is to expect adequate funds to flow from these sources. The RPA is still some way off and we do not know how funding scenarios will shape up. Contracting for legal services has not even got off the drawing board and is likely to provide only limited funds for a few specialist providers. Contracting for government services may be part of the solution but again there are limitations to how much funds we can expect to flow from this. There are inherent dangers in contracting, for example the recent DETI public tender for a Money Advice Service for Northern Ireland is as likely to be won by private sector operators who will take on the work for profit motives but are unlikely to share the values of the sector. This approach also creates competition rather than cooperation between the main advice providers. Funding from the private sector itself, whilst welcome in particular circumstances, is also likely to have a limited impact.

In some ways, the strategy sets out a vision of a sustained advice sector, but this could be at a high cost to local service provision. A potential threat contained within the strategy is the lack of detail, and by implication the lack of recognition, for frontline advice services in communities of need. By not setting out a more detailed resource package for these essential services, there is a risk that they become marginalised and devalued and that ultimately resources may be redirected from them.
Given these challenges, it is even more important that the advice sector stands together to maximise the opportunities presented in this new environment and to ward off private sector competition. Being divided and buying too heavily into the contracting culture might ultimately be to the detriment of the sector and of those who rely on our services.

We need to be positive about our ethos and values in service provision and stress how these complement government’s own priorities whilst maintaining our long standing tradition of social rights and advocacy. We must also concentrate on highlighting essential advice service provision targeted towards meeting the needs of deprived areas and disadvantaged social groups. Other government policies and strategies, such as new TSN, evidence the real need for these services. We must ensure that the strategy sets out a comprehensive resource framework for the sector, allowing decisions to be taken on an inclusive, informed and holistic basis. The sector must take the opportunity to press for this approach and not allow the strategy to take an overly simplistic approach, to the long term detriment of the sector, and more importantly of service users.

The strategy implies concerns about the quality of service provision amongst the wide range of advice providers and focuses on the critical role of the Advice Services Alliance (ASA) ‘in ensuring that consistent quality standards are established and maintained’. Depending on the stance taken by ASA, quality standards may take the form of bureaucratic proxy measures of quality including the need for reams of written policies and procedures. The GB Quality Mark, which it is widely accepted was a disaster, requires upwards of 90 pieces of written materials to evidence quality but there is little or no evidence to suggest that these impacted on the quality of advice provided. A lighter touch approach may be to focus on the advice outcomes and place a greater emphasis on the quality of advice provided, with monitoring taking the form of peer reviews, ‘mystery shoppers’ and client feedback.

adviceni has been at the forefront in taking forward quality assurance initiatives in recent years. The Investor in People standard has underpinned much of our quality work. Many members are progressing towards achieving this and other externally accredited generic standards. Our membership criteria have been revised, to focus on exactly what subjects are advised on by members, to what level, with what information resources and with what training. Part of this work has been about members recognising their limitations and having appropriate partnership, sign-posting and referral systems in place. This integrated approach, whilst reflected in the strategy, is not adequately addressed. It is hard to see how the new hub model will deal with the practicalities of implementing linkages between regional specialist organisations and local providers. We must ensure that grassroots advice centres are not alienated or marginalised by prohibitive standards which reflect bureaucratic need rather than practical realities.

The strategy suggests that the sector needs to ‘improve levels of co-operation, to rationalise and minimise duplication of services’ and argues for a single IT-based case recording and information system and for an integrated training plan for the sector. When the word rationalisation is used by government, it tends to mean one thing – reduced resources. The advice sector currently processes 450,000 enquiries per year from around 230,000 people. adviceni membership workload is 225,000 enquiries; Citizens Advice deals with roughly the same number and Law Centre (NI) has a specialist second tier workload of around 6,000 enquiries. Service providers report that demand for advice (particularly social security which accounts for 55% of enquiries) far exceeds supply. To rationalise on the basis of duplication is too simplistic.

The goal of a single IT case recording system will potentially impact on the current systems. adviceni members and CABs use different systems, developed for different needs. The strategy does not explore whether they can be more closely aligned without having to choose one over the other. It suggests that all provision should be linked to an area hub but it is unclear how this goal will be achieved and resourced. A one size fits all approach to case recording is not the right solution. For example, our Advice Information Management System has extensive reporting capabilities, configurability and flexibility which suit the individual needs of our membership and their funders. It would be wrong to restrict an organisation’s ability to report on the unique work it is doing by imposing a solution which does not fit its needs.

adviceni will work with our partners and government to ensure that what emerges from the consultation exercises is a strategy fit for purpose, good for the sector, good for our members and which best fits the needs of service users. We will continue to articulate the message for a strong and united advice sector relevant to the needs of local people and communities.

An opportunity and a challenge

Les Allamby, Director, Law Centre (NI)

The publication of the Department for Social Development’s strategy for supporting advice services is an important milestone. It is the first time any government department has set out publicly a strategy for advice services. The initiative is long overdue. For too long, advice agencies have developed services without knowing the overall funding framework within which they are expected to operate. The Law Centre warmly welcomes the Department's initiative.

The publication of the consultation document is particularly timely. The funding landscape for local Citizens Advice Bureaux and independent advice agencies is about to alter dramatically. The Review of Public Administration (RPA) will shortly see eighteen health and social services trusts reduced to five organisations, four health boards will become a single commissioning body and in time 26 local councils will be reduced to seven local authorities. In light of these developments, there will undoubtedly be changes to the way existing local advice organisations are funded. The consultation document provides us with an opportunity to argue how advice services should be funded under the new RPA arrangements. In effect, there is a chance for the advice sector to shape events rather than simply to react to them.

This positive note does not underestimate the challenge facing the sector. Attention will concentrate on the hubs and satellites, where they will be located and how they will operate. The consultation document provides little detail, reflecting the fact that the Department does not have a blueprint for how this approach will work in practice. The strategy document is also silent on any commitment to additional resources. For the strategy to provide an effective advice network locally and beyond, then more resources are required. A litmus test for the strategy will be whether it provides the necessary stability and security that allows advice agencies to concentrate on its work delivering effective advice and other support to the public. The initial promise of resources, announced at the launch of the strategy, was very welcome. It needs, however, to be the first downpayment and not the dowry.

Beyond hubs and satellites, there are other important issues including greater co-ordination of funding approaches across government, an audit of the gaps in provision, updating of quality standards, greater coordination of case recording systems across the sector, more effective cooperation of training services and recognition of the importance of the role that advice and information services play in neighbourhood renewal.

The strategy represents an opportunity as well as a substantial challenge to the sector. It is predicated on the Advice Services Alliance working co-operatively and cohesively on behalf of the sector in partnership with the Department for Social Development. Given the changes envisaged, this is not going to be easy and the Alliance will need to look long and hard at what it can realistically deliver in conjunction with local advice agencies. Moreover, the Alliance should be open about what can and what cannot be achieved.

From a Law Centre perspective, we can only work effectively if there is a strong and effective Citizens Advice Bureau and independent advice network working on the ground. As the strategy unfolds, the benchmark for positive progress will be whether that strengthened network is achieved.