seeking help, advice and...

Nigel BalmerLegal Services Research Centre

London, England

Introduction to ‘Causes of Action’ and the ‘English and Welsh Civil and Social Justice Survey’

www.lsrc.org.uk

Seeking help, advice and representation

Legal Services Research Centre (LSRC): Projects

– English & Welsh Civil & Social Justice Survey– Impact of Debt Advice– Diversity of the LSC’s Service Provider Base– Debt Outreach Advice Research– Victims of Crime and Civil Justice– Means Assessment and Eligibility– Small Area Information– Workforce Development– Delays in Youth Courts

Small scale projects on ad hoc basis

Strategic research resource for the LSCCurrent long-term projects:

www.lsrc.org.uk

Causes of Action : Civil Law & Social Justice

www.lsrc.org.uk

The English & Welsh Civil & Social Justice Survey

Large scale survey of adults experience of and response to everyday problems, throughout England and Wales

Ran in 2001 and 2004, now being conducted on a continuous basis

Over 5,000 adults interviewed in their homes for each survey

Interviews averaged 50 minutes if problems identified

Temporary accommodation sample in 2001

Problems experienced between 1998 & 2001, 2001 & 2004

1.

2.

3.

4.

To provide measures for the Department for Constitutional Affairs’ PSA targets on legal need and use of courts.

To facilitate the development and testing of the Legal Services Commission’s small area legal need models.

To develop our understanding of advice seeking behaviour

To form a major part of the broad empirical base upon which civil justice policy can develop

Purpose

www.lsrc.org.uk

Causes of Action – Second edition

• Similar number of adults interviewed

• Greater spread of areas

• Interviews lasted similar amount of time

• Problems experienced between 2001 and 2004

• No case study areas or temporary accommodation sample

• Possible add-in questions/case studies in the continuous survey

www.lsrc.org.uk

The Second English & Welsh Civil & Social Justice Survey

Causes of Action

• Questions on being the victim of and being involved in crime

• Detailed information on impact of and adverse consequences stemming from problems

• Illness/disability tracking (event history calendars)

• Marital status tracking

• Employment status tracking

• Advice moved to screen questionnaire

• Far greater information on advice seeking

• Possibility to examine persistence of advice seeking strategies across problems

www.lsrc.org.uk

Improvements upon the first survey

“Since January 1998 (2001) have you (has your partner) had any problems or disputes that were difficult to solve to do with any of the things on this card”

Problem Identification

www.lsrc.org.uk

Civil Justice Problems

Race discrimination Landlords not making repairs

Faulty goods Redundancy Misleading advice about pensions

Eligibility for welfare benefits Breakdown of relationships

Eligibility for schools Anti-social neighbours

Planning permission Being injured in a car Citizenship

Violence in the home Wrong medical treatment

Eviction or Repossession Unfair treatment by the police

Rights of way Harassment by creditors Poor work conditions

• Not abstract legal problems

• Problems of everyday life, such as those concerning:

Discrimination Divorce

Consumer Relationship Breakdown

Employment Domestic Violence

Neighbours Children

Owned Housing Personal Injury

Rented Housing Clinical Negligence

Homelessness Mental Health

Money/Debt Immigration

Welfare Benefits Unfair Police Treatment

www.lsrc.org.uk

Screen Section(all problems)

Problem identification- type/number of problems

Basic response- whether assistance sought- why no assistance sought- whether proceedings issued- specific advice sought - detailed impact

Demographic information- personal- household- tracking- experience of crime

Survey Questions

www.lsrc.org.uk

Main Section(one problem)

- Problem definition- Awareness of sources of help- Obstacles to assistance- Reasons for inaction- Experience of courts, tribunals

and ADR- Objectives - Outcome- Cost of any action- Attitudes to civil justice system

Survey Questions

www.lsrc.org.uk

Overview of incidence

www.lsrc.org.uk

Everyday problems

Inequality of experience

• Around a third of adults reported one or more (non-trivial) problem (over the 3½ years survey reference period)

• 36% in 2001, 33% in 2004

• Socially excluded particularly vulnerable to civil justice problems

• Experience of problems has an additive effect

• People with long-term health problems or disabilities

• The unemployed and people on very low incomes

• People living in rented or high density accommodation

• Lone parents

• People aged between 25 and 44

• Victims of crime

Overview of incidence

Everyday problems

Inequality of experience

• Around a third of adults reported one or more (non-trivial) problem (over the 3½ years survey reference period)

• 36% in 2001, 33% in 2004

• Socially excluded particularly vulnerable to civil justice problems

• Experience of problems has an additive effect

• Ill-health and disability: 38%

• Unemployed: 55%

• High density accommodation: 41%

• Lone parents: 57%

• People aged between 25 and 44 41%

• Victims of crime 47%

1. What types of advice/dispute resolution services do people with civil justice problems need?

www.lsrc.org.uk

2. Are there sufficient and accessible services available?

3. How can it be ensured that those providing legal and advice services have adequate experience, competence &

knowledge?

Questions


www.lsrc.org.uk

A) Any? – rates of action and inaction

B) A wide range - the advice maze

C) Appropriate & timely advice - referrals and fatigue

A significant proportion of those with problems do nothing and regret doing so. Changes since 2001

Respondents used a diverse range of advisers

Respondents failing to obtain appropriate advice often fell from the system

• No action was taken to resolve 19% of problems in 2001, but only just over 10% in 2004

• Lower incidence set against maintained supply

• Easily accessible phone lines

• Increase in new technology to locate advisers

• Varied greatly by problem type

• Most often because it was thought nothing could be done

• Sometimes it was because respondents were scared to act

www.lsrc.org.uk

Not everybody facing a problem tries to resolve it

Immediate importance of education and awareness Technology can impact upon awareness?

A) Any? – rates of inaction


• 10% used the internet for advice/information in 2004, compared to 4% in 2001

• Internet is typically used as a tool for locating advisers, rather than for obtaining advice

• Results in a substantial increase in advice (68% vs. 50%) for those using the internet in 2004

• Trend is highly likely to continue

• Digital divide – divide in obtaining advice

www.lsrc.org.uk

New technologies – use of the internet

How can the internet be best used to ensure appropriate advice is provided?

Addressing the digital divide?



www.lsrc.org.uk



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40%using internet

% p

robl

ems

Did nothing toresolveHandled Alone

Obtained advice

Tried and failed

Tried and failed &handled alone

www.lsrc.org.uk

1 in 3 main survey respondents expressed regret

Generalising to the screen and general population

For every 1,000 adults we might expect around 750 problems and 250 where they regret the handling of the problem

‘Is there anything about the way in which you handled the situation that you wish you had done differently?’

1 in 3 of those who did nothing expressed regret

Most commonly –

‘Should have taken some action (not sure what)’

Advice of any kind?


B) A wide range - the advice maze

Solicitors Trading Standards Social Workers

Politicians Employers

Police Insurance Company Help Lines

Churches The Media

Health Professionals Citizens Advice Bureaux

Consultants Claims Agencies Ombudsman

Job Centres

Housing Associations Trade Unions Court Staff

Local Councils

Trade Associations

Solicitors Citizens Advice BureauxOther Advice Agencies Local CouncilsTrade Unions EmployersPolice Insurance Companies

and ‘Other’

• ‘Fit’ of first advisers to problem type generally appropriate, but evidence of frequent confusion and uncertainty

• General progression from generalist to specialist advisers, but this was not always so

• Advice for 52% in 2004 compared to 43% in 2001

www.lsrc.org.uk

People seek advice from a wide range of advisers

Evident difficulties in navigating the advice maze


Advisers from whom advice was successfully obtained 2004


www.lsrc.org.uk

Other advice agency

Insurance company

Employer

Union

Health professional

Police

CAB

Local council

Solicitor

Other

Increase in percentage of problems obtaining advice has not led to a proportional increase in the use of mainstream

advisers. Local council, health professionals and ‘others’


Advisers used at some point

0 10 20 30 40 50

Solicitor

Local council

CAB/other advagency

Police

Union etc

Employer

Insurance

Other

20012004

First Advisers 2001

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Discrimination

Children

Welfare Benefits

Housing (Rented)

Employment

Domestic Violence

Consumer

Homelessness

Money/Debt

Medical Negligence

Personal Injury

Housing (Owned)

Post-Relationship

Divorce SolicitorCABOther Advice AgencyTrade Union / Prof BodyLocal CouncilEmployerPoliceInsurance CompanyOther


www.lsrc.org.uk

05

101520253035404550

1 2 3 4+Number of adviser in sequence

Perc

enta

ge o

f adv

iser

s CAB

Solicitor

Other mainadvisersOther

www.lsrc.org.uk


The Advice Maze 2001

Claims AgencySocial WorkerOmbudsman

Housing AssociationHealth Professional

Court StaffBarrister

MPReligious Organisation

MediaSocial Security Office

Consultant

Without a large intervention people are likely to continue to use a wide and diverse range of advisers

Possibly a wider range - INTERNET


Some common ‘other’ first advisers

www.lsrc.org.uk

C) Appropriate & timely advice

Over a third who sought advice from a CAB and insurance company advice lines were referred on to another adviser

More than a quarter of all referrals were to solicitors

Specialist advice agencies and local council also commonly referred to

www.lsrc.org.uk

Some types of adviser routinely refer people on

Fewer 10% of those who sought advice from a solicitor were referred on

Similarly, ‘other’ advisers rarely referred on

The success of referrals varied greatly by adviser

Some types of rarely refer people on elsewhere


Success of referrals

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

CAB Police InsuranceCompany

LocalCouncil

OtherAdviceAgency

TradeUnion,

etc.

EmployerSolicitor Other

% o

f Adv

ice

Rec

ipie

nts

Unsuccessful ReferralSuccessful Referral


More success where referrals are common

Referral fatigue

0

50

100

First Adviser Second Adviser Third Adviser

% s

ucce

ssfu

l ref

erra

ls

2001 2004

www.lsrc.org.uk


Partly the nature of first advisers

Failed referrals

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

1st adviser 2nd adviser 3rd adviser 4th adviser

Num

ber o

f Adv

ice

Rec

ipie

nts

Failed referralReferred adviceNon-referred advice

www.lsrc.org.uk


Significant numbers did nothing and regretted doing so

Often these people did not know what to do

Increasing role of technology in changing strategy

www.lsrc.org.uk

Any

Appropriate and timely advice

A wide range

Respondents go to a wide variety of advisers and are likely to continue to do so -

Fit policies to what people do

Those not getting appropriate advice quickly become increasingly likely to fall from the system

These were amongst the most likely to regret their actions



www.lsrc.org.uk

A) Little evidence of insufficient provision in terms of proximity

B) Problems with access

C) Major problems are with education & awareness

Problems with sampling

Mode of contact

Obstacles/barriers to obtaining advice

Perceptions of provision

Reasons for inaction & regret

Education and inaction

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100% othercouldn not find onetoo expensivetoo far away/none in my area (none in 2004)not availablewaiting too longgot no replycouldn t get throughnot of any help

‘Other’ was almost entirely a result failure upon first contact as a consequence of

contacting an inappropriate adviser

e.g. ‘Did not want to hear’ or ‘Of no use’

Proximity may still be an issue – rural sample

More impact on mode of contact

A) Little evidence of insufficient provision in terms of proximity

‘Why were you unable to obtain any advice or help?’


Proximity of advisers may be an issue

Difficult to fully explore without a genuinely rural sample


www.lsrc.org.uk

www.lsrc.org.uk

Again, varied by problem typeParticularly housing; neighbours and rented housing

Not family problems, divorce and PI

Should be viewed in terms of typical advisersNeighbours/rented housing – Local council (28% unsuccessful)

Family/PI – Solicitor (5% unsuccessful)

B) Problems with access?

Around 16% (15% in 2001) of those seeking advice were unsuccessful


www.lsrc.org.uk

‘Unable to help’ = Most common reason

‘Couldn’t get though on phone’ = 2nd most common reason

- particularly for CABx

- likely to be compounded by opening hours

- face to face not possible for many

- Less common in 2004

Reasons for being unsuccessful

Evidently some problems with access

Result likely to be dropping out and regretting doing so


Reasons for inaction?


Single most common reason for inaction

‘did not think anything could be done’

Particularly for mental health, discrimination and renting but common for nearly all problem types

Respondents were often simply unaware of possible courses of action


www.lsrc.org.uk

Not so much provision or ease of access, but actual awareness of what could be done

“Do you know if any of the people or organisations on the card are close to where you live? By close, I mean within about two miles of where you live?”

Aim was to compare respondents’ perceptions of what advisers are nearby with actual data extracted from the CLS directory


www.lsrc.org.uk

`Birmingham

Respondents who reported no advisers about two miles of their home

Some postal areas have more than one respondent

Scale shows 3 miles

www.lsrc.org.uk

Birmingham

Respondents who reported no advisers about two miles of their home

Some postal areas have more than one respondent

Scale shows 3 miles

Solicitors shown in red

CABx in green with 2 mile buffer

All of these respondents were wrong

Perceptions do not match actual provision

www.lsrc.org.uk

46% of those with a CAB within 2 miles of their home were unaware of it

25% of those without a CAB within 2 miles thought there was one

At least 43% were unaware that a solicitor was within 2 miles

83% of those with a Law Centre within 2 miles were unaware of it

Awareness in 2004

Certain groups lacked awareness


Black respondents, those without transport, public rather than private renting for CABx


www.lsrc.org.uk

A) Evidence of insufficient provision in terms of proximity?

B) Problems with access?


Little evidence, though possible problems with sampling

Evidently some problems with access

‘Inability to help’ - wrong adviser?

‘Couldn’t get through’ – inability to meet demand?

May be sufficient, but problems with lack of awareness

Many simply did not know what to do or what was available

3. How can it be ensured that those providing legal and advice services have adequate experience, competence & knowledge?

www.lsrc.org.uk

Respondents obtained advice from a wide range of sources

Some sources were evidently more helpful and/or appropriate than others

‘Other’ advisers account for a significant proportion

‘Other’ advisers become more influential as number of advisers rises

While certain advisers are more likely for certain problems, respondents action was unpredictable

www.lsrc.org.uk

A) Acknowledge the range of advisers people use

B) Focus on people and their awareness of rights and what can be done when faced with problems

And links between civil justice problems and those outside recognised advice sectorRole of problem noticing and effective referral (e.g. health workers, social workers, jobcentres)

Investment in public legal education to create awareness of sources of help and assistance

National curriculum

Could result in more predictable advice seeking from more appropriate sources

Increased Internet use? Wider range of advice?

3. How can it be ensured that those providing legal and advice services have adequate experience, competence & knowledge?

Questions

www.lsrc.org.uk

How can we ensure people contact appropriate advisers?

- especially in light of the options provided by the internet

- how should possible modes of contact be balanced?

How do we minimise number of referrals?

- could advisers be more proactive in going to find problems?

- how could they go about this?

How can understanding be raised of what can be done when faced with a civil justice problem?

- how is awareness increased, especially without internet?

- who has responsibility for this?

seeking help, advice and...

Documents