Quality

The aim of this workstream was to develop a new quality standard for the advice sector, to replace the CLS General Help Quality Mark.
 
As well as developing standards to ensure advice agencies are well run, the project sought to devise criteria for assessing the quality of advice given to clients.
 
We have completed work to develop the standard. Unfortunately, in the current funding climate, we are unable to set up an audit body. However, we hope to be able to take the project forward in the future and are considering how we might do this.
 

The Standard

The standard we have developed is designed to be awarded by an external auditing body and we believe that external audit is essential to guarantee a consistent standard. But, as there is currently no external auditing body, we have adapted the existing materials slightly to make them easier for agencies to use for internal quality improvement.
 
The Quality of Advice Standard
The Service Standards
 

Definitions

In order to ensure that the remit of the new quality standard was clear, we developed some agreed definitions for terms in common use in the advice sector, such as information, advocacy, casework and specialist. This document (Definitions to help you understand the advice sector) was designed to help agencies decide whether the quality standard was appropriate for their service but we hope it will be more widely used in the sector to spread common understanding of terms.
 

Consultation and evaluation

In developing the new standard we consulted widely with advice agencies and networks, funders, and providers of other standards. We recruited and trained auditors and piloted draft quality criteria and assessment processes with 20 advice agencies, drawn from different networks and providing advice to diverse client groups.
 
First General Consultation on the Draft Standards and Potential Assessment Methods - Findings Report, April 2009
 
Developing the New Quality Mark - Consultation Findings Executive summary
 
We commissioned an independent evaluation of the pilot which found that there was strong support for the standards and that the criteria and methods of assessment constituted a robust measure of quality.