Agenda item

Cllr Hayhurst in the Chair

 

5.1   The Chair welcomed all those in attendance for this item, and reminded those present that this was a meeting held in public, and not a public meeting, and that questions from the public would only be allowed at the discretion of the Chair and time permitting.  It was also reiterated that Scrutiny Panel was not a decision-making body, and this item was to scrutinise the process for the Review of Advice Centre Services.

 

Hackney Council

5.2   Sonia Khan, Head of Policy and Partnerships outlined the purpose, process and outcomes of the Review of Advice Centre Services.  The key points from this presentation are outlined below:

·  The model for the review of advice centres was agreed at Cabinet in October 2018, and that the decisions taken within that review were endorsed by Cabinet in March 2019.  The panel noted that the total budget for advice centres had been protected, therefore decisions taken about budget allocations to individual advice centre providers was based on the outcomes of the open competitive process and not as a requirement to achieve savings from this budget.

·  A ‘Systems Thinking’ approach had been used to review Advice Centre provision as this focused on the perspective of clients and front-line services rather than a top-down approach. 

·  Until 5 years ago there was no framework for funding advice centres.  Funding until then was provided in two ways: grants and an open competitive process. In 2014/15, funding levels for advice services had been maintained and were ring-fenced.  A policy objective framework had been developed to support advice centre provision.

·  A review of advice centres had also been undertaken at this time which involved advice providers, but did not assess advice given in-situ.  When grants were awarded in 2015/2016, it was apparent that there was not a collective view of the client experience of local advice services and that this should be incorporated in to future funding decisions.  Therefore, a Systems Thinking approach, which placed the service user at the heart of the review, was endorsed by Cabinet in January 2016. 

·  The process for the Systems Thinking review had been agreed with advice centre providers and Advice UK were commissioned to lead the review.  The review covered six key lines of enquiry: the customer experience, client flow, timeliness, activity demand, reach and workforce.  The first phase of work commenced in August 2016 and involved talking to providers and clients as well as observing advice sessions and reviewing case files. 

·  In February 2018, a wider set of providers (not just ones that were already funded) were invited to participate into Phase 2 of the review.  A very similar process was adopted to Phase 1, except that the Council stepped back and invited providers to work together and to observe practice.  This led to the development of the new advice model which was shared with providers in September 2018.  Cabinet endorsed the new model in October 2018, at this stage providers were asked to submit proposals based on this new approach in November 2018.  Proposals were assessed by scoring and through face to face interviews.  As a result of this process, the Council was confident that it had a pool of organisations that would continue to work together to further develop advice service provision in Hackney. 

 

Questions

5.3   The Panel sought to clarify what was meant by the allocation of grants based on need rather than merit. 

·  In response, it was noted that if the process awarded grants purely on the basis of points given for the proposal, it would have been possible that some communities or sectors would be without advice provision.  The redesign of the process ensured that that there is adequate coverage across the borough that could respond to local needs.

 

5.4  The outcome of this process was that there were now a greater number of smaller advice service providers within the new funding model. The Panel was concerned this would impact on the sustainability of the advice sector.

·  Whilst sustainability is clearly important, it was noted that the purpose of the new model was to develop local advice provision which was balanced and reflected local needs, which to date had been missing.  The aim of the new model was to develop a network of provision which was sustainable for the future, rather than on the sustainability of any one individual organisation.  There was however transitional support available for those services not funded to the value of their proposals.

·  There was also increased demand for local advice services, a trend which had continued for a number of years.  The new model of provision was in part developed in response to this increased demand, as this process would help to identify new ways in which providers could work collaboratively to respond to the increasing levels of need.

 

Hackney Community Law Centre

5.5  Sean Canning made a presentation on behalf of the Hackney Community Law Centre.  A summary of the key points from this presentation is given below:

·  HCLC worked in good faith with the Systems Review and engaged with the process as required.  HCLC had reservations about the process however, in particular whether the methodology understood the nature of the work of HCLC in Hackney’s advice landscape.

·  In feedback from the assessment, it was suggested that HCLC did not offer wrap-around support or a person centred approach to help clients.  It was suggested that the HCLC provided legal advice in the social context of a clients’ needs. HCLC helped people to solve local resident’s problems through such legal interventions that may help to prevent homelessness, stop people from losing their immigration status or losing their job.  Many of these legal interventions were carried out in partnership with other local agencies.

·  It was suggested that the advice centre review had also failed to take into account the cuts to the Legal Aid budget which had been ongoing since 2013 and had severely impacted the HCLC.

·  It was generally recognised that HCLC was a specialist legal advice service within the borough, and the systems review had not fully understood this role within its funding process, in particular how it supported high profile test cases.

·  It was suggested that as just two local authorities had implemented a Systems Thinking approach (Portsmouth and Nottingham), this would imply that Hackney was embarking on a review of advice centre provision for which there was insufficient empirical evidence to indicate that this may be an effective approach.

 

Citizens Advice Bureau 

5.6  Yasmin Alam from the CAB made a number of points in relation to the advice review in Hackney which are summarised below. 

·  The CAB has been working with the Council to support the advice needs of local residents for a number of years.  In 2019, the service helped almost 24,000 people.  The CAB welcomed the Systems Review as demand for advice services had been growing and a new way of managing demand was needed.

·  The research which had come out of the Systems Review process had been very useful to the CAB as it had brought new analysis to the way it operated and had helped the organisation to move forward.

·  The outcome from the review process was that the CAB had received an approximate £100k cut in its grant, which was substantial and had meant that the organisation has had to make reductions to its services. Hackney CAB had reduced its service from 4 days to 3 half-days.

·  CAB indicated that it would continue to work with the Council and other partners to manage the impact of this, to continue the research and learning of how local residents used advice services.  This would take careful management as a lot of people were coming through the doors of CAB which would need to be redirected across the system.

 

5.7   How does the Council intend to evaluate the new Systems Thinking approach given the lack of empirical evidence to support it?

·   In response, it was noted that the empirical base for this advice model was rooted in the local research and analysis of the local advice system which was undertaken in collaboration with local advice centres.  This research had formed the evidence base for the new model.  The Cabinet Member indicated that whilst the model may have only been rolled-out in a relatively small number of authorities, systems review processes were relatively common place and had been used to help reshape provision in response to cuts in Legal Aid and other austerity measures.

 

5.8  How will the Council measure the effectiveness of the new approach to advice services? 

·  In response, it was understood that the new grants framework had a clear purpose: ‘help me solve my problems and regain independence by giving the right advice promptly’.  Performance measures were set within this ethos which went beyond traditional measures (how many people accessed the service and how many appointments offered). The new approach offered a more nuanced assessment which included quantitative data (number of people trying to access, accessed or turned away from services), demand measures (e.g. preventable demand) and capability measures (e.g. why people re-attend).  These measures would provide the Council and local advice service providers with a more detailed understanding of how well the local advice system was working and what might be needed to further improve it.

 

5.9   How does the Systems Thinking approach evaluate HCLC spending many hours on one particular case, which whilst only supporting the needs of one local resident, may have positive benefit for many thousands of others nationally who may be in a similar position? 

·  In response, it was noted that the Council funds HCLC for legal advice, and although it might not fund it for what could be considered strategic litigation, it would be open to discussions and negotiations as to how this could be resourced within the new funding model.  It should be noted that the current system of monitoring which is based on appointments would also not recognise the value and benefit of strategic litigation.

·  The Cabinet Member emphasised that the new model of advice provision would not be a dilution of the service, and that local residents would still be able to access specialist legal advice through a wider range of agencies.  Therefore, local residents would be able to access specialist legal advice through Shelter (for housing concerns) and Praxis (for immigration concerns).

 

Praxis

5.10  Bethan Lant, Advice Manager from Praxis (which works with vulnerable migrants across London) made the following points about the Systems Thinking review Hackney.

·  Praxis was not involved in any of the early consultation processes for the new advice systems approach as they were not funded by Hackney at that point.  Praxis was funded from October 2017 to March 2019 to work with front line services to provide 2nd tier advice on immigration issues, support the management of complex cases and to provide training to front line teams.

·  Praxis was interviewed as part of the advice review process for its views on the advice service landscape in Hackney.  The key points from this was the demand for advice in the local system was very high and that local services were struggling to meet local needs.

·  Praxis itself had reviewed its own service through the Vanguard method and was therefore familiar with the principles and ethos of the Systems Thinking approach.  Praxis was encouraged that Hackney had taken a step back to analyse how local demand could be met through new and different ways through the local advice system.

·  Praxis applied for a grant under the new advice centre model and had been granted funding to provide advice in partnership with Hackney Migrant Centre.  Praxis was looking forward to working in Hackney alongside other providers to continue to improve the quality of its work through the Vanguard method.

 

 

 

Fair Money Advice

5.11  Muna Yassin made the following points in relation to advice centre review process and the new funding system.

 

·  Fair Money Advice (FMA) had not been funded by Hackney through the mainstream grants programme, but has been delivering debt and finance advice in Hackney for over 10 years.  FMA offers advice at an emergency stage for clients but also seeks to provide advice at a much earlier point to help prevent the onset or escalation of financial problems.

·  FMA joined the advice systems review process at Phase 2. It was apparent within the review that there was a range of needs in the community where some residents needed to be signposted, whilst other more vulnerable residents needed more holistic support to manage their financial concerns.

·  FMA provided specialist regulated advice, therefore had qualified and experienced staff delivering intensive and impactful services. It was important that clients had choices and can access services as and when they are needed (remote, in-person).  FMA received about 10-15 referrals for specialist debt advice each week from CAB, this figure has continued to grow.

·  FMA have supported the Systems Review process as this incorporated a very holistic assessment of where clients receive advice, the nature of advice provided and their preferred settings for this to take place.  Understanding these issues helped providers to better plan and shape advice, which can assist in more preventative work and prevent issues from escalating.

·  As an advice agency, there was an obligation to work with clients and their needs over and above what funders might expect that agency to do.  FMA was therefore encouraged that Hackney had adopted a people centred approach to develop a new model for advice centre provision. 

·  It was accepted that the new approach to advice provision in Hackney would not be an easy process and that this would be an evolving system.  What was important however, was that it was a learning system where providers, both collectively and individually, would collect data that would help them to better understand advice provision in Hackney.

 

Questions

5.12  How does the new model of advice provision ensure that people get advice at the right place and minimise instances where people may be passed around the system? 

·  Officers responded that even prior to the new model being introduced, people currently arrived at the wrong place for advice.  There was an option to commission a one-stop shop in the new process but this would have created another level of transaction and interaction within the system before people got the help that they needed.  By providers working together in the new system, there was a way to improve the points of entry into the system and to ensure that advice was provided where people most need it and to minimise onward referral.  This process would evolve and improve within the new system.

 

5.13  The panel sought to clarify why advice providers were not informed until February about the funding outcomes within the new approach to advice systems in Hackney?  Should this not have been done sooner to help providers prepare?

·  In response, officers noted that this was grant funding and not contract funding.  Therefore funding was provided at fixed term intervals and there was no guarantee that money would continue.  Funding was initially for two years and this process was extended for a further year to help introduce this new system, therefore providers were aware of this process and the timeframe for funding.

 

5.14  What was the difference between ‘value demand’ and ‘failure demand’? 

·  The Panel understood that an external failure demand was where something had gone wrong and that demand for advice was driven by failure somewhere else in the system (such as an error within another department such as the Department for Work and Pensions).  An internal failure demand (created by the advice service) would be a client having to chase an action that an advice service should be doing for them.  Value demand was where someone entering the advice system isn’t trying to correct some other error in the system.

 

5.15  How had HCLC worked collaboratively with CAB? 

·  Officers from HCLC indicated that this relationship had been very positive particularly over the two-and –a half years of this exercise.  It was noted that a lot of people had accessed CAB with housing problems and both agencies had worked together to develop a triage and more streamlined process to respond to this need.  It was noted that Legal Aid to local residents had declined by 75% to £150k, this was why it was important to have local authority funding to supplement this loss of income.

 

Women’s Refugee Association

5.16  Simin Azimi made the following points in relation to the new advice system:

·  The Women’s Refugee Association (WRA) had been supporting residents in hackney for 25 years and until recently had not been given a grant by the council.  For many years, the range of organisations that had been funded had not varied that much.

·  The WRA also supported the Systems Thinking approach, as the organisation has used this approach for many years to provide holistic support to its clients.  Using client’s views and perspectives of services was critical to developing an effective service that was responsive to need.  Service collaboration was also central to this approach to ensure that there was a package of support available to clients that can help meet their needs.

·  Systems Thinking also involved teaching clients to think for themselves and to help them become more independent.  In this context, Systems Thinking was about what the client can do for themselves as well as how advice services can support the client. 

·  Although WRA would only receive half of the grant for what it applied for, it was nonetheless supportive of the Systems Thinking process which led to this funding decision.

 

 

Shelter

5.17  Amy Wilks from Shelter made the following points about the advice systems review in Hackney.

·  Shelter was one a number of agencies that took part in the public tender for this grant and was pleased to be successful in being able to deliver advice and support to residents in Hackney.

·  Shelter had also taken a Systems Thinking approach within its own organisation and undertaken a very similar client centred review of its service.  Shelter was also encouraged that Hackney had also taken this approach and pleased to be part of the review.

 

Questions

5.18  After having heard from other advice services, where does HCLC feel that it sits within this advice landscape?

·  Officers from the HCLC reported that it has operated in Hackney for many years and has provided legal expertise which it hoped had enhanced the value of other local services.  This could be a direct referral from another organisation but also provide guidance on legal issues for these organisations.  It was suggested that the review had reached a point where a line had been drawn between the legal work and the social context of the client.  In many cases it is very difficult to distinguish one from the other (e.g. a discrimination case brought on mental health grounds).  It was suggested that work undertaken by HCLC had also saved approximately £9.5 million in 2018 in direct and indirect costs.  Thus, taking funds away from this specialist legal advice service may not be the best approach.

·  From the Council’s perspective, it was reiterated that no ‘line had been drawn’ between legal advice and the social context of clients to drive a reduction in the allocation to the HCLC.  There had been no reduction in the level or the value of legal advice provided within the new advice landscape as this was being funded to the same level as in the past, it was just that other providers were now providing this alongside the Hackney Law Centre.

 

5.19  What transitional support is available to organisations that have lost funding within this process and is this recurrent or one-off funding?  (From the public) How can HCLC prepare for the future and what guarantee does it have that there will not be further cuts down the line? 

·  The Council responded that a transitional fund was planned for this financial year 2019/20 which was agreed by Cabinet in 2019.  Therefore, the council would work together with HCLC to ensure that this service was supported and protected, but also to give the organisation some capacity to work with the council to help it adapt and fit into the new advice provision landscape.  Therefore, the council would keep this position under review until the end of the next financial year (2020/21).  In terms of the future, it was recognised that this was the start of the development of the new model of advice centre provision and that services would continue to collaborate to further develop and refine provision so that it would meet client’s needs.  If council budgets remain as expected, it was noted that funding for the advice budget would remain the same for next year (2020/21).

 

5.20  A request was made for the additional questions submitted in advance to the SP Panel to receive an answer from Council officer.  (From the Public)

·  The Chair advised the additional question would be sent to officers to receive a written response.

 

5.21  The acting Chair thanked all the representatives from the council and local advice agencies for attending and responding to questions from the Panel.

 

Agreed: The additional questions submitted by the public to the Scrutiny Panel would receive a written response from LBH Officers.