The Scottish Government

Listen

Main Findings

• The survey found that 28% of the general population in Edinburgh had experienced a justiciable problem between 1998 and 2003.
• People with a justiciable problem in Edinburgh were more likely to be living in rented accommodation, in receipt of income support, have children at home and live, or have no formal qualifications have a physical or mental impairment than people without a justiciable problem.
• Neighbourhood disputes, in the form of anti-social behaviour, were reported most frequently (22%), followed by problems with housing (8%) and problems relating to money (8%).
• 39% of respondents who reported a justiciable problem said they had experienced only a single problem in the previous 5 years.
• 61% of people who reported a justiciable problem in Edinburgh sought advice from a third party. People who did seek advice were most likely to seek help for injury due to an accident, divorce or separation and for medical negligence. People were least likely to seek advice for faulty goods and services.
• People were most likely to approach the local council for advice followed by the police. However, the nature of the problem had an impact on the type of agency approached for advice. People with benefit problems were most likely to contact the local council and Citizens Advice Bureaux (CAB) whereas people with neighbour problems were more likely to contact the local council or the police. People with problems relating to divorce or separation were more likely to approach solicitors or CAB.
• The vast majority of people who accessed the internet perceived they were successful in obtaining advice (86%). In contrast, only 42% and 45% of people who approached the council or the police said they were successful in eliciting helpful advice respectively.
• A proxy model was developed to estimate the relative prevalence of justiciable problems in Edinburgh compared with 3 other areas. According to this model, Edinburgh recorded the highest prevalence for employment problems and problems relating to divorce and separation and the lowest prevalence for problems with welfare benefits.

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 recommendations for further work, including a comprehensive exercise to assess need for legal advice services.

A key proposal was to replicate the needs assessment in a range of areas to explore the impact of local differences in population size, existing provision and demographic profile on the levels or nature of need for legal advice. Consequently needs assessment was conducted in the 4 pilot partnership areas: Glasgow West, Argyll & Bute, Edinburgh and Fife.

The focus of this paper is on the findings of the needs assessment exercise in the Edinburgh area. Research Findings are also available for Argyll & Bute, Fife and Glasgow West. An overview describing the aims, methods and conclusions of the whole study is also available.

Methods

A community survey was administered to a random sample of the population in Edinburgh 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 total, 1,452 people were surveyed. The survey captures 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. The questionnaire took 10 minutes to complete.

A proxy model was also developed using the survey data to estimate the nature and level of legal problems in the Edinburgh area. The key findings were subsequently discussed in a group with key stakeholders. 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 in Edinburgh

Results showed that 28% of people surveyed in Edinburgh reported at least one justiciable problem over a 5 year period between 1998 and 2003.

Neighbourhood disputes in the form of anti-social behaviour emerged as the most common problem in Edinburgh (reported by 22% of people interviewed). However, prevalence rates were not evenly distributed across the city. Neighbourhood disputes were most prevalent among those living in postcode areas EH17 and EH15.

The second most prevalent problem was housing (8%) followed by problems relating to money (8%).

A minority of respondents with a justiciable problem (39%) reported a single problem over the 5 year period. 31% had experienced 2 problems and 14% had experienced 3 problems. For those with more than one problem, neighbourhood disputes, housing problems, divorce and separation and problems related to being a victim of crime tended to cluster together.

Advice seeking behaviour

A key component 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.

61% of people interviewed in Edinburgh said they had sought help for their problems. The main reasons given for not seeking help were that 'I decided not to bother' and 'the problem was over and done with'.

The type of action taken seemed to be influenced by the type of problem experienced. Overall, people were most likely to seek help for injury due to an accident, divorce or separation and for medical negligence. People were least likely to seek advice for faulty goods and services.

Further, respondents aged between 16-24 years, were less likely to seek help than any other age group.

Those who sought advice were found to approach statutory organisations, such as the local council, more frequently than private solicitors or voluntary sector organisations.

To some extent, it appears that age, gender and the nature of the problem itself also had an impact on the type of agency approached for advice. Findings showed that older respondents were more likely to contact the local council than younger respondents. More female respondents than males had approached CAB. Further, respondents with neighbour problems were more likely to approach the police for advice, whereas respondents with divorce or separation and benefit problems were most likely to approach CAB.

Success in obtaining advice

It is clear that perceived success in obtaining advice varied from source to source. 42% of people approaching their local council for advice said they were successful whereas perceived success rates were considerably more favourable for the internet (86%), CAB (60%) and Trade Unions (63%).

Mapping need in Edinburgh using proxy-based models

This part of the research focused on testing existing proxy models that have been widely used across the UK to estimate legal need. Proxy models use routinely collected data as indicators to estimate the levels and nature of problems within a given population. Of all existing models, the CLS small area needs models were found to be the most valid. Consequently, the CLS models for employment, debt, welfare benefits and housing were tested in the Edinburgh area. The models were used to estimate the relative number of problems in Edinburgh compared with other partnership areas and could also estimate problem prevalence at ward level.

The CLS models showed that Edinburgh had the lowest score for debt and welfare benefits problems when compared with all four areas. Within Edinburgh, employment problems were found to be particularly high in Tollcross, Broughton, Meadowbank and Lorne. Southside, Tollcross, Dalry and Holyrood have the highest levels of housing problems. For debt problems, Muirhouse, Drylaw, Criagmillar, Murrayburn and Carlton were found to have the highest number of problems. In terms of welfare benefit problems, Muirhouse, Drylaw, Craigmillar, Stenhouse and Restalrig were identified as wards with the highest number of problems.

Although scores for the whole of Edinburgh were able to be constructed and mapped at ward level, there were several problems with this model. First, it was not possible to replicate the models exactly since some of the equivalent indicators were not available for Edinburgh. 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 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 that Edinburgh had the smallest percentage of problems relating to welfare benefits, but the highest number of problems relating to divorce or separation and employment.

The proxy model could also identify particular postcode districts in Edinburgh which appeared to elicit particularly high or particularly low levels of problem reporting above and beyond the factors included in the model. In Edinburgh, postcodes EH10, EH29, and EH4 were found to elicit particularly low levels of problem reporting. Conversely, EH13, EH15, EH17, EH6 and EH7 were areas with particularly high levels of problem reporting. Further elucidation of these findings requires local knowledge - this was the role of the pilot partnership.

Group Discussions

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

Most providers recognised the value of utilising research evidence in planning. However, it was clear that some providers found it difficult to comment on the findings for the whole of Edinburgh as their experience of providing advice tended to be concentrated in smaller areas within the city. Further, most providers specialised in providing advice for specific areas of law such as housing issues or debt issues. As a consequence some providers felt that survey prevalence levels seemed lower than they expected from their own experience. This view was particularly evident for providers who supply advice on debt and benefit problems. Similarly, some participants challenged the high prevalence of neighbourhood disputes found in the study. Participants felt that the current media focus on anti-social behaviour may have inflated reporting of the problem.

Participants accepted that the overall level of advice seeking observed in Edinburgh reflected their experience. However, providers expressed concern that respondents might have been unsure whether the sources they contacted for advice were council-run or not. Many providers suggested that people were apathetic about seeking help, preferring to 'bury their head in the sand' than seek advice.

Although some participants raised concerns about the reliability of the indicators used in the CLS proxy models, participants felt that both methods were potentially valuable and had enhanced participants' understanding of need in Edinburgh. Overall, in spite of some initial reservations about the findings, many providers felt that both methods would be very useful in the future planning exercise.

Footnote

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 based on pre-defined categories of law.