The Scottish Government

Listen

Main Findings

• The survey found that 29% of the general population in Fife had experienced a justiciable problem between 1998 and 2003.
• People with a justiciable problem in Fife were more likely to be living in rented accommodation, in receipt of state benefits, be divorced and more likely to have children at home than people without a justiciable problem.
• Neighbourhood disputes, in the form of anti-social behaviour, were reported most frequently (21%), followed by problems with faulty goods and services (5%), money (4%) and benefits (3%). The vast majority of respondents (81%) said they had experienced only a single problem in the previous 5 years.
• Only 22% of people who reported a justiciable problem in Fife sought advice from a third party. People who did seek advice were most likely to seek help for family problems such as divorce or separation and for housing problems. They were least likely to seek advice for faulty goods and services, neighbourhood disputes and benefit problems.
• People were most likely to approach statutory organisations such as the police or the local council for advice. However, the nature of the problem had an impact on the type of agency approached for advice. People with relationship problems were more likely to seek advice from solicitors whereas the vast majority of people who sought help from the police were reporting problems with neighbours.
• Most people who approached the police or solicitors for advice indicated that they were successful in obtaining the advice they were looking for (88% and 86% respectively). In contrast, only 45% of people who approached the council said they were successful in eliciting helpful advice.
• A proxy model was developed to estimate the relative prevalence of justiciable problems in Fife compared with three other areas. According to this model, Fife recorded the highest prevalence for problems with neighbours and faulty goods and the lowest prevalence for housing problems, employment problems and problems with divorce or separation.

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 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 Fife Local Authority area. Research Findings are also available for Argyll & Bute, Glasgow West and Edinburgh. An overview Research Finding 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 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 total, 1,402 people in Fife 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 25 minutes to complete.

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

Results showed that 29% of people surveyed in Fife 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 Fife (reported by 21% of people interviewed). However, prevalence rates were found to be higher among particular sectors of the local population. Neighbourhood disputes were most prevalent among those who were renting accommodation, in receipt of housing benefit, or income support and those who had a physical or mental impairment.

The second most prevalent problem was faulty goods and services (5%) followed by problems to be with money (4%) and benefits (3%).

Most people (81%) only reported a single problem over the 5 year period. For those with more than one problem, neighbourhood disputes, problems to do with money and 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.

Only 22% of people interviewed in Fife said they had sought help for their problems. The main reasons given for not accessing help were that 'the problem was already resolved' and 'I decided not to bother'. Notably, a much higher proportion of respondents over the age of 65 years said they would do nothing about the problem because they 'did not know where to go for advice'.

What people did about their problems 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.

The findings also showed that younger people, particularly those aged between 16-24 years were less likely to contact any source for advice than other age group.

Advice-seekers were found to approach statutory organisations such as the council and the police more frequently than private solicitors or voluntary sector organisations.

Motivation for contacting the local council and the police was often related to the perception that these organisations had 'the power to take action'. This finding is consistent with previous research that found that most people who sought help were seeking direct assistance to resolve their problems, rather than just information or advice. However, the findings showed that gender and age also seemed to influence the type of advice people were seeking. A higher proportion of older respondents (35+ years) and female respondents wanted to talk the problem over with someone.

To some extent, it appears that factors such as gender, age and the nature of the problem itself also had an impact on the type of agency approached for advice. More females contacted the local council for advice than males whereas older respondents were more likely to contact the police for advice. Further, half of the people with relationship problems had sought advice from solicitors whereas the vast majority of people (98%) who sought help from the police were seeking advice for problems with neighbours.

Differences were also observed in the order in which sources were approached. The local council were invariably the first point of contact for advice seekers; 94% of people who approached the local council had contacted them before anyone else. In contrast, the police were more likely to be the second point of contact for people seeking advice. Only 32% contacted the police before any other source.

It should be noted that only 6% of those who sought advice in Fife attended a court or tribunal. No respondents said they had attended mediation or conciliation.

Success in obtaining advice

The local council were perceived to be the least helpful agency in terms of obtaining the type of advice people were looking for. 45% of people approaching their council for advice said they were successful whereas perceived success rates were considerably more favourable for the police and for solicitors.

Mapping need in Fife 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 Fife area. The models were used to estimate the relative number of problems in Fife compared with other partnership areas.

The CLS models showed that Fife had the highest score for need for employment advice of all the partnership areas, but the lowest level of need for housing advice. Within Fife, it was found that Inverkeithing West, Rosyth South, Thornton, Stenton and Finglassie South, Balgeddie, Collydean, Dalgety Bay West and Hillend have the highest need associated with employment problems. For housing problems, those wards with the highest number of problems were Methil, Ballingry and Lochore and St Andrew's Central. For debt problems, the wards with the highest number of problems are, Methil, Auchmuty, Woodside Wesr, Smeaton and Overton, Newcastle and Tarshall. Finally, for welfare benefits problems, the wards with the most problems are Smeaton and Overton, Buckhaven, Denbeath, Methil and Cowdenbeath Central.

Although scores for the whole of Fife 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 Fife. 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 Fife had the smallest percentage of employment problems, housing problems and problems relating to divorce or separation but the highest number of problems relating to faulty goods and services and neighbourhood disputes.

The proxy model could also identify particular postcode districts in Fife which appeared to elicit particularly high or particularly low levels of problem reporting above and beyond the factors included in the model. In Fife, postcode KY1 and KY11 were found to elicit particularly low levels of problem reporting. Further elucidation of these findings requires further 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.

Although providers recognised the value of utilising research evidence in planning, group discussions revealed that some providers found it difficult to accept the results of the survey or the proxy when the findings were not consistent with their experience. In particular, providers of advice in specialist areas such as domestic violence and debt advice found the relatively high prevalence of other problems such as neighbourhood disputes unconvincing.

Some providers were also unconvinced by the relatively low prevalence of debt and benefit problems picked up by the survey. This may be because providers who supply advice on these specific areas perceive the prevalence of these problems as much more common than a survey would suggest.

Participants offered possible explanations for the low number of people who sought advice in Fife. Many thought that people left problems until 'the last minute' and were increasingly less likely to seek help for consumer problems such as faulty goods as 'the trade is now more willing to exchange goods'.

Participants were not surprised at the high satisfaction levels with the advice given by the Fife police. Some commented that the police in Fife have a good working knowledge of civil legal issues and were effective in signposting people to appropriate organisations if they were unable to assist.

Overall, most agencies represented on the partnership 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.