The Scottish Government

Listen

Main Findings

• The survey found that the overall prevalence of justiciable problems experienced in the previous 5 years (1998-2003) was similar across the 4 study areas, ranging between 28% and 32%.
• People with a justiciable problem were more likely to be living in rented accommodation, in receipt of housing benefits, have children in the home, be unemployed and have a physical or mental impairment than people without a justiciable problem. Minority ethnic respondents were more likely to experience a justiciable problem than white respondents. Discrimination was reported more frequently among this group.
• The profile of reported problems was also consistent across areas. Neighbourhood disputes were reported most frequently in all 4 areas, followed by problems to do with housing.
• What people did to resolve their problems was found to be influenced by area and by problem type. Advice was least likely to be sought in Fife (22%) and most likely to be sought in the more rural location of Argyll & Bute (66%). Across all areas people were most likely to seek help for family problems and medical negligence and least likely to seek help for problems with faulty goods. Minority ethnic respondents sought advice more frequently than the main sample.
• People were most likely to approach statutory organisations such as the police or local council for advice. However, over half of respondents indicated that they were 'unsuccessful' in obtaining the help they wanted from their local council. Satisfaction levels were slightly higher for the police, but considerably higher for people who had sought help from solicitors.
• The community legal service (CLS) small area needs models were compared with other proxy models as a way of assessing legal need. Although the CLS models had some advantages over other proxy measures, none were ideal. A new approach is recommended using the survey data.
• In terms of supporting future needs assessment work, the survey and proxy were viewed as complimentary methods. The key strength of the survey was the ability to explore people's help seeking behaviour. While proxies cannot assess advice-seeking behaviour, they have the advantage of estimating relative need at ward or post-code level more cost-effectively than a survey.

Introduction

In November 2001 the "Review of Legal Information and Advice Provision in Scotland" was published. This report examined how local provision of legal services could be improved, developed and structured. The Working Group that produced the report did not propose a blue-print for community legal service provision, but instead focused on a number of key recommendations for further work, including a comprehensive exercise to assess need for legal advice services. Three key aims for further research emerged from the recommendations:

• Conduct a needs assessment exercise using the main methods of assessing need in the UK: a proxy model and a survey.
• Run group discussions with legal providers to discuss how data might be used to plan services.
• Make recommendations on the most appropriate method of assessing need within a Scottish context.

Methods

Four community surveys were administered to a random sample of the population in 4 areas. These areas were Glasgow West, Edinburgh, Argyll & Bute, and Fife. To ensure a sufficient sample size was obtained, a target sample of 400 people with at least one legal problem over a 5 year period was achieved in each area. A boosted sample (100) of minority ethnic respondents was interviewed in Glasgow West. The design of the survey questionnaire was built on earlier research undertaken by the Legal Services Research Centre (LSRC). The surveys capture 13 categories of 'justiciable problem' ranging from immigration to housing problems, family problems to money and benefit problems. The survey also describes whether people sought help or advice for their problems and whether people were satisfied with the help they received.

A number of proxy models currently or recently used in the UK were also tested in each of the 4 areas and evaluated for their validity and reliability. The key findings were discussed in 4 groups with key stakeholders in each area. Discussions focused on whether the data generated by these methods would be helpful in future planning and included representatives from statutory, voluntary and private sector provider organisations.

Prevalence of legal problems

Results showed that, notwithstanding differences in population characteristics and population size, prevalence rates for all categories of justiciable problems were found to be broadly similar across the four areas. In Edinburgh, 28% of people surveyed reported a justiciable problem over a 5 year period from 1999 to 2003 compared with 29% of the general population in Glasgow West and Fife. The highest number of problems overall was recorded in Argyll & Bute (32%). These prevalence rates are similar to those found by a national survey, Paths to Justice ² and the Microcosm Study ³, which found the prevalence of justiciable problems in Scotland was 26% and 25% respectively. There were no marked geographical differences in how frequently particular problems were reported. Neighbourhood disputes in the form of anti-social behaviour emerged as the most common problem in all four areas followed by housing problems and faulty goods. This pattern is consistent with the Paths to Justice and the Microcosm Study.

However, prevalence rates were found to be higher among particular sectors of the population. More minority ethnic respondents (36%) said they had experienced a justiciable problem. In particular, they were more likely to report problems with discrimination. Respondents with a justiciable problem were also more likely to be in rented accommodation, receiving benefit, have children at home, be unemployed, looking after the family or the home, have a physical or mental impairment and have a lower household income. In terms of experiencing any type of justiciable problem, the survey did not reveal marked differences in relation to gender, age, marital status or educational qualifications. However, the survey did find a slight trend for older people to report neighbourhood disputes and housing problems. In most areas, it was found that around 80% of people had experienced only one problem with the exception of Edinburgh where, only 39% of respondents had experienced a single problem. In all areas, neighbourhood disputes, housing, money problems and being a victim of crime tended to cluster together for those with more than one problem.

Advice seeking behaviour

A key aspect of the study was to explore whether people had taken any action to resolve their problems. Respondents were asked whether they sought help or advice, which sources they approached and whether they had been successful in obtaining advice. Those who did not seek advice were asked to give reasons why they chose not to approach a third party.

Overall 49% of people interviewed across all 4 areas sought advice for their problems. However, the survey found considerable geographical differences in advice-seeking behaviour. Although all respondents had indicated that their problems were either 'very important or important to resolve', only 22% of people interviewed in Fife said they had sought help for their problems. This contrasted with 66% of people who said they had sought help in Argyll & Bute. However, there was no direct evidence that people in Fife found it more difficult to access advice services than advice seekers in other areas. The main reasons given for not accessing help were that 'the problem was already resolved' and 'I decided not to bother'. Advice seeking behaviour also seemed to be influenced by the type of problem experienced. Overall, advice was most likely to be sought for divorce/separation and children, medical negligence, injury due to an accident and housing. People were least likely to seek advice for problems relating to faulty goods.

Advice-seekers were found to approach statutory organisations such as the council and the police more frequently than private solicitors or voluntary sector organisations. This finding was broadly consistent across areas. Motivation for contacting the council and the police was often related to the perception that these organisations had 'the power to take action'. This finding is consistent with the Microcosm Study that found that most people who sought help were seeking direct assistance to resolve their problems, rather than just information or advice.

Success in obtaining advice

Respondents indicated that the council were more likely to offer advice, information or help to resolve problems than either the police or solicitor. Nevertheless, the council were perceived to be the least helpful agency in terms of obtaining the type of advice they were looking for. Overall, perceived success rates were more favourable for the police and considerably more favourable for solicitors (with the exception of Edinburgh).

Mapping need using proxy-based models

This part of the research focused on testing and evaluating existing proxy models that have been widely used across the UK to estimate legal need. Firstly, the construction of the models was evaluated for validity and reliability. The researchers concluded that the CLS small area models had some advantages over other existing models. They are built on the recognition that there are different types of legal problems that should be included in a proxy model and measure the extent and nature of legal problems within a given population. Consequently, the CLS models for employment, debt, welfare benefits and housing were tested in the same 4 community areas as the survey. Scores for the whole of Scotland were able to be constructed and mapped at ward level (see full report for findings).

At the same time there were several problems with the CLS models. First, it was not possible to replicate the models exactly since some of the equivalent indicators were not available for Scotland. Second, there was no way of assessing the relative levels of need arising from different sources, e.g. employment need relative to welfare need because they are measured on different scales. Third, the conceptual framework for the model is based on existing categories of social welfare law rather than empirically drawn from the patterns of need itself. To rectify these and other difficulties, survey data relating to prevalence and demographics collected by mruk were used to develop a new empirically-based proxy measure. The new model found 6 clusters of problems that are likely to be associated with different needs for legal services and identified the prevalence of these clusters in the 4 research areas. The characteristics of those experiencing a legal problem are more varied than could be summarised by proxy measures of deprivation. For example, the model showed that families were more likely to report a relationship problem or neighbourhood dispute than those with no children, and older people were 3 times more likely to report problems with neighbours. Since much of this information is gathered by the census, this model would allow mapping at ward level across Scotland.

Group discussions

An important component of this study was to elicit the views of service providers on the outputs from the survey and the proxy and allow them to consider how they could be utilised in a future service planning process.

Although providers recognised the value of utilising research evidence in planning, discussions revealed that some providers were initially reluctant to accept the findings of the survey or the proxy when the figures were not consistent with their experience. In particular, providers found it difficult to accept relatively low prevalence of debt and benefit problems.

However there was broad acceptance that the experience of participants was commonly much narrower than the scope of the survey (i.e. working in a specific issue context or a smaller geographic area). Following a full and detailed discussion the majority of participants were comfortable with the survey results and accepted them as a comprehensive picture of justiciable problems.

Reactions to the Proxy model were generally very positive, though there were some concerns expressed regarding the reliability and quality of input data and the concentration on "deprivation" linked issues.

Therefore, in spite of some initial reservations about the findings, many providers felt that the data generated using both methods would be very useful in the future planning exercise.

Conclusions

The project set out to compare and contrast the survey and the proxy, and to generate recommendations on the most appropriate method of assessing need. Proxy and survey methods were found to be complimentary, each with its strengths and weaknesses. The most appropriate method has been found to use neither approach in isolation, but rather to use a combination of the two.

The survey approach has a number of key strengths. In particular, the formation and scope of questions is flexible and allows the exploration of advice seeking behaviour and levels of satisfaction with advice provided. However, surveys are expensive to conduct regularly at a ward level.

Proxy measures of legal need can be developed using empirical estimates of the prevalence of different types of legal problems. However, there were a number of difficulties with the use of existing models. Instead a method that derives proxy indicators from survey data is recommended.

Footnotes

1. A justiciable problem is defined as a problem which raised a legal issue, whether or not it was recognised as legal by the respondent, and whether or not any action taken by the respondent involved any part of the civil justice system. These categories are data sets based on pre-defined categories of law.
2. Genn, H and Paterson, A (2001) Paths to Justice Scotland: What People in Scotland Do and Think About Going to Law.
3. Palmer, C and Monaghan, C (2001) The Public Perspective on Accessing Legal Advice and Information: Key Findings from a Microcosm Study.