2.Main Content
Gauging demand for free money advice
Although there seems to be a lot of information available about the need for debt advice, it is not easy to assess the demand for free advice in this area. This issue is highlighted by a recent discussion paper by Jim Fearnley for the Money Advice Trust Gauging demand for free-to-client money advice.
The paper analyses the data available from a variety of sources about
- Demand that is met
- Demand that is unmet
- The relationship between need and demand
- How demand is defined in terms of demographic profiles and socio-economic data
- Advice providers’ perceptions of demand
- Types and levels of demand
- The extent of over–indebtedness
The paper suggests that
- Gauging demand for money advice is problematic for a variety of reasons
- Demand is not the same as need, and the relationship between estimated need, itself often assessed according to proxies, and demand is not straightforward
- Demand can be unmet due to a range of factors
- A definition of “met demand” is partially reliant on proxies such as number of cases dealt with or enquiries assisted with, neither of which expresses a guarantee that the demand for problems to be resolved has been fully met
- Data on met demand is generally not commensurable across agencies
- Met demand information and other data relating to some segments of the free-to-client money advice sector is not currently available
The paper suggests that there is a need for standardisation of the information recorded by money advice providers, further research, analysis and modelling. It proposes a possible outline methodology for estimating global levels of total demand, based on extrapolating need volumes from statistical estimates of numbers of indebted and over-indebted people, and cross-referencing these volumes with existing data on met and unmet demand.
The paper is highly recommended for anyone interested in assessing the need for free advice in relation to debt or other forms of social welfare law. It leaves unanswered a number of questions however, including
- The extent of need or demand for different forms of debt advice, such as telephone as compared to face-to-face advice, or for services such as CCCS as compared to services funded directly or indirectly by government
- The extent of need or demand from clients who are likely to be eligible for services funded by the Legal Services Commission
More generally, how the needed free-to-client money advice should be funded.
Read the paper
End of Section Back to top
