The advice sector is trying hard
ASA has published a report that examines the different ways that advice agencies manage clients' access to their services, how they organise their intake systems and why they do it in the way that they do.
Overall the report, Getting past reception: Access and intake systems in Not for Profit legal service providers , concludes that it is resources that determine what agencies can achieve in terms of access. More specifically, the report finds that:
- Accessibility was a key issue for the agencies involved in the study. They wanted to help as many people as possible but were very conscious that people did find it difficult to access advice
- Agencies were not standing still. A majority had made substantial, recent changes to their intake systems in an attempt to improve access
- The agencies were heavily involved in outreach and targeted service provision
- Demand almost invariably exceeded capacity, often by a long way. This was so in terms of enquiries generally and demand for casework. This meant that agencies had to make decisions about which types of cases and clients would be taken on and which would be taken on only partially or not at all
- One size did not fit all. The ways in which access was provided were influenced by resources, client groups served and priorities, which were often specific to individual agencies
- There is no single solution to the problem of access and all approaches have their upsides and downsides
The report also finds that prioritising resources involves trade offs and there are tensions between different aspects of service, for example between:
- accessibility and efficiency: providing access via outreach, targeted provision, and home visits, might not be cost effective in terms of the numbers of clients who could be helped via these channels
- quantity and quality: providing a specialist casework service, and fulfilling obligations to existing clients, might mean limiting the numbers of initial enquiries dealt with, and numbers of new clients taken on
- being even handed and helping the most needy: applying intake systems to whole service provision was difficult; outreach and inward referrals for example, might involve bypassing usual processes. Agencies aimed to do more for clients who were vulnerable in various ways
- providing full access in each instance and more rounded access generally: doing everything for individual clients might mean limiting the numbers and range of problems which could be dealt with. This was a key factor in encouragement towards self-help, especially in debt cases
- accessibility and safety: abusive or violent clients were said to be in a very small minority, but addressing the risk of violence could impact on provision. In particular, the supply of home visits was dependent upon agencies' assessments of what was needed to ensure the safety of staff
