The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

2. Case studies

2.1 Case Study 1

2.1.1 Introduction

This organisation is a registered charity providing a range of support services to people who are homeless, threatened with homelessness, or affected by homelessness in any way. One element of the organisation's activities - the Community Support Service - has undergone audit and accreditation. The service has a total of nineteen members of staff with a base in a city centre location and a remote service provided from two rural locations. Accreditation was awarded in 2007.

The service provides general housing support services and an advice and information duty service to clients already in their own tenancies who may be having difficulty maintaining their tenancy without support, people at risk of homelessness, and those who are homeless. The service also provides a Rent Guarantee Scheme which operates across two local authority areas. Clients receive full support through the duty service and where clients require longer term support they are re-allocated to a long term support worker to take on their case. This case work is the main focus of their activity. The service provides support to approximately 600 to 700 people each year and will be working with 100 to 150 clients at any one time.

The key focus of their work is to help people develop the skills and coping mechanisms to take on tasks and responsibilities to manage a tenancy. Support workers give clients advice and information on their housing support needs and also help clients access other services to address issues that may impinge on their ability to sustain a tenancy such as drug, alcohol and mental health issues.

Housing information and advice is delivered as part of a wider support package to individuals.

The service is currently funded by the two local authorities covering its area of operation with additional funding through Supporting People.

2.1.2 Adopting the Standards

The organisation began looking at the National Standards five years ago. Its Chief Executive was involved with the development of the Standards at a national level It has been involved from an early stage in the issues around standardising quality in the provision of information and advice. Staff told us that over the past 20 years the organisation has been becoming more business-like, moving from a charitable, voluntary organisation to a key service provider.

They felt that the National Standards would improve the service that is being provided and the quality of information and advice that they give.

It was also felt that adopting the National Standards would benefit the organisation. The organisation has a range of projects each doing slightly different things. They were keen to ensure a consistent approach to the provision of information and advice over the whole organisation - and ensure that they are better at keeping up to date with legislation and policy.

2.1.3 Experience of working to the Standards

The National Standards were adopted at a time when the organisation was about to undergo restructuring and this had a significant impact on the approach that was taken. Staff also felt that the disparate range of projects (in terms of activities, geographical location and management structures) meant that it would be most effective to focus on one particular service.

Initially, the Standards were adopted at one of the organisation's main projects which, at that time, incorporated three distinct services: a day centre; an employment and housing information service; and community support service.

In late 2002 a dummy audit was undertaken to give the organisation a sense of how well it was doing in relation to the Standards. This showed that there were significant areas for improvement in terms of processes and quality. It also demonstrated that it was trying to adopt the Standards across too many projects and that there was a need for one lead officer to give the process more focus and direction.

Subsequently, restructuring took place and the Community Support Service became distinct from other projects. It was felt that this would be the most appropriate place to focus efforts to meet the Standards, as it is a 'gateway' service - and that they can then be rolled out across the wider organisation at a later date. (Following accreditation the next most likely area to undertake work on the National Standards will be the day centre service - again because it provides a 'gateway' or 'front door' service.)

2.1.4 Decision to apply for accreditation

From an early stage staff felt that adoption of the Standards went hand in hand with accreditation. They felt that given the effort and resources required to adopt the Standards it made sense to pursue accreditation and gain recognition for the work they had put in.

Towards the end of 2003, the staff who were pushing the process forward sat down and looked at how they would achieve accreditation. They felt that they were working to many of the Standards and wanted someone independent to look at how they were performing. They felt that they were in a good position to try to achieve accreditation.

The decision to apply for accreditation was also influenced by the development of homelessness strategies at the two local authorities (following the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001). Both of these strategies promote the development of improved standards of information and advice provision and make explicit reference to the National Standards.

The organisation undertook a self-assessment against the criteria to meet the Standards. They received input from HomePoint staff, discussed the areas that required development and developed an action plan for the service. At this stage they were also fortunate to have a volunteer working at the organisation with particular expertise in housing legislation. This individual was able to give valuable advice on key legislation and areas for improvement.

Although working to meet the priorities in the action plan, accreditation was put on the 'back burner' over 2005 and 2006 due to funding and staffing issues affecting the organisation.

Despite this long delay it was felt (particularly by the staff member driving forward the process) that a lot of effort had been put in and it would be a waste to drop accreditation. So they decided to concentrate their efforts once more and applied for Type II accreditation in early 2007.

An audit was conducted in April 2007 and resulted in a conditional accreditation (now described as 'not yet fully compliant' accreditation). They were asked to look at a number of areas for improvement in order to fully comply with the National Standards. These included: better administration and updating of resource materials; and procedures for referral to other agencies.

Following this first audit a new action plan was put in place identifying which staff members were responsible for each area of improvement. New systems and procedures were put in place particularly in relation to evidencing and writing up client time. Key areas that were highlighted in the action plan included:

• expansion of the referral system to incorporate external agencies;
• improvement of available information and reference materials;
• ensuring a clear distinction between support and advice within case files;
• directly evidencing time spent on housing information and advice;
• establishing a policy for case review in terms of housing advice and information;
• developing training needs analysis; and
• establishing a rolling record of reviews and updates of documented procedures.

A second audit was undertaken in December 2007 and the organisation was awarded full accreditation.

2.1.5 Experience of the process

Staff at the service are delighted to have achieved accreditation and feel that the process was worthwhile, but were clear that it has been time consuming and demanding for the staff team. The process was made more difficult by restructuring and threats to funding faced by the organisation. Although they recommend working to the National Standards to others, staff told us that if they had failed accreditation they probably would have dropped it given the funding issues and restructuring of the organisation. As an alternative they would have continued to send staff members to the training sessions.

A key issue faced during the audit process was that the service does not operate a 'clinic' style of service but provides information and advice as part of (and not clearly distinct from) wider support to case clients. Regularly information and advice will be given to a client in an ad hoc way and as requested. This caused difficulty in terms of articulating what they do and there were issues of interpretation between the service providers and the auditors.

The auditors wanted the service to make a clearer distinction between support and the provision of information and advice - and better promote the advice side of the service. This was one of the main things to come out of the April audit and a new system was devised whereby staff writing up reports of time spent with clients distinguish between time spent providing wider support and time spent giving information or advice (and whether Type I or Type II). Staff are required to outline the time spent providing one-to-one support to clients to satisfy the conditions of their Supporting People funding. The new system has created another layer of paperwork for staff.

Another issue to emerge during the audit was the quality of referrals procedures. The organisation has adopted a model for referrals in partnership with other local agencies and this satisfied the audit team. However, they have had more difficulty developing agreed referrals procedures with one of the local authorities. This was recognised in the April audit and despite improving relations and some progress this has not been fully developed to date. The audit team were satisfied that efforts are being made to resolve this.

The service was also asked to improve the management of their resource materials. The auditors wanted resources to be kept in one place and a small library has been created. Staff are asked to note down which resources they have used and there are now regular reviews of the resource materials available.

In preparing for audit - and subsequently working to the action plan - it was difficult for staff to find time to commit to the process. There is also a sense that this type of service development becomes a priority around the time of audit but there is a danger that it drops in priority after the audit is complete. Senior management and members of the voluntary management committee have questioned whether the process was worthwhile since it was time and resources not spent on the core service. However, staff leading the process were keen that they continued through to audit / accreditation.

The cost of the audit was funded from the organisation's own budget with no direct funding from the local authority or any other body. This was not emphasised as a key issue and was not considered to be prohibitive. However, staff felt that there is scope to incentivise the scheme more - and that the Government needs to think how accreditation ties in with the funding of projects and programmes.

A key issue for the organisation was the differing levels of awareness of its two local authority partners in relation to accreditation for the National Standards. Neither local authority provides funding support for organisations undergoing audit. It was also felt that staff at one of the councils had a better understanding than the other of what is involved in working to the National Standards, and what accreditation means in terms of the quality of service provided. The two local authorities were at different stages themselves in terms of adopting the Standards. Generally, there was some concern that the Standards are not clearly understood at a strategic level.

2.1.6 Impacts / added value of accreditation

Staff were clear that the process of adopting the Standards and becoming accredited has raised the level of skills and the knowledge base of staff. They are confident that the service provided to clients has improved. To date they only have anecdotal evidence of an improving service and emphasise the difficulty in evaluating the impact that information / advice has had on an individual case - particularly where there are multiple and complex needs.

The process has also raised confidence levels among staff and has been a driver for more focused working among the staff team. In terms of the organisation there is a perception that accreditation will increase respect for their approaches.

Staff feel that it has been a worthwhile exercise to undertake this kind of quality assurance work. It is particularly beneficial to question your own processes and systems.

However, there is still uncertainty about the future benefits that accreditation will bring to the organisation. It is unclear what accreditation will mean for them in terms of future contracting prospects.

2.1.7 Lessons learned

• Preparation for accreditation is a process that can improve the knowledge base and competencies of organisations providing information and advice. This is particularly the case where information and advice is not the sole focus - but is part of a wider support package.

• Accreditation is particularly valued at organisations working with clients who do not use mainstream services and where flexible approaches are taken to the provision of information and advice. Staff feel justified in their approaches and have greater confidence. At a managerial and strategic level the organisation is in a stronger position in discussions with partners.

• This organisation did not see a distinction between working to the National Standards and working towards accreditation. Their first priority was achieving a high level of quality. Having put in the effort and resources to adopt the Standards, it made sense to pursue accreditation and gain recognition for what they had achieved.

• The process of accreditation is long and resource intensive. Progress was put on hold by difficulties faced in terms of funding - but continued at a time when it was more achievable. The process was driven forward by a lead officer who 'championed' the accreditation process.

• A key difficulty is the inconsistent position of local authorities in relation to accreditation. This has meant that there was no support for the organisation available locally. Uncertainty about the relationship between accreditation and future contracting or funding opportunities may act as a disincentive for organisations.

2.2 Case Study 2

2.2.1 Introduction

This organisation is a registered charity providing housing information and advice and advocacy to people threatened with homelessness. The organisation has eleven members of staff. All those members of staff providing information and advice have undergone training for the National Standards and the organisation became accredited at Type III level in 2006.

The organisation can provide a range of services for clients. Among the most requested are:

• general information and advice;
• attending interviews;
• representation;
• preparing written material,
• liaison with legal representatives; and
• negotiation with landlords.

The organisation helps approximately 1,000 clients every year. The majority of these are people who are threatened with homelessness.

2.2.2 Adopting the Standards

A senior member of staff was involved in developing the original Standards in 1995. Therefore there was long term support at a high level in the organisation for introducing the Standards. There was also a clear understanding of the benefits of adopting the Standards.

It was felt that working to the Standards would enable the organisation to offer a better level of support for clients. Working through the various Standards to achieve Type III accreditation also served as a tool for developing the organisation.

Finally the organisation had a service level agreement in place with the local authority, and a future condition of this agreement was to work towards the National Standards. Therefore in terms of securing future funding, it was important to achieve accreditation. The organisation also felt that accreditation could help to access other sources of funding in the future.

The process from the first point of contact with HomePoint to being accredited at Type III lasted about three years. The starting point began by having staff attend training for the National Standards and ensuring a shared understanding of the Standards among members of staff.

Following this, the organisation self assessed themselves against the criteria required to meet the Standards. This helped to identify what steps the organisation needed to take to meet the Standards. At this point discussions were held with staff on what was the best way to make the changes required.

In order to meet the Standards the organisation had to produce written documentation of the organisation's procedures. The various policies and systems were known to staff but there was no written evidence of this. This proved a time consuming process and required the agreement of the management committee. The committee was made up of volunteers, and as such, the cycle of committee meetings meant that it was a time consuming process to get all the new policies and procedures agreed and implemented.

Discussions with staff revealed that although the support available from HomePoint was effective, it would have been useful to have had more 'hands on' help when working towards the Standards. A development worker was suggested as being a potential way of providing this support. The role of the worker would involve advising organisations on what needs to be done to work towards the Standards, ensuring that only organisations that are compliant with the Standards go forward for audit and to encourage organisations to begin working towards the Standards. The worker would also be able to clarify any areas of misunderstanding of the Standards.

2.2.3 Experience of working to the Standards

The Standards have greatly benefited staff and the organisation. The standard and level of service on offer to clients has improved, as has staff morale and working practices. The organisation has also seen a growing demand for its services.

On a wider scale, staff felt that the Standards had been of benefit to the wider housing information and advice sector. The challenge now is to ensure that more organisations begin to work to the Standards.

Discussions with staff revealed a perception among other advice organisations that achieving the Standards required a great deal of work, time and resources. Although this is the case, many organisations over-estimated the amount of work required to meet the Standards. Some of the Standards such as 'community profiling' are often not understood by organisations, and as a result, they don't know what is involved. Therefore people can be put off working towards the Standards.

In order to evidence the quality of services delivered to clients the organisation carries out a service user feedback survey. Since the organisation was accredited the feedback from the survey has been very positive.

Discussions with staff revealed a perception that organisations providing information and advice could not simply rely on handouts to secure their funding. Organisations need to demonstrate their value to funders. National Standards accreditation is one way an organisation can do this.

The issue of the regularity of further validation and assessment of the service delivered was one that concerned senior staff at the organisation. It was felt that it was unnecessary to have an interim validation after 18 months and then be reaccredited after three years. This period was seen as being too short.

An accreditation period of five years was seen as more appropriate, with interim validations only applying to those organisations that had experienced some problems during their initial accreditation. There could also be a series of factors that could trigger an inspection during the accreditation term. For example, if an organisation received a high number of complaints or had a high level of staff turnover.

2.2.4 Decision to apply for accreditation

Full accreditation was seen as the end of the process, so it made sense to become fully accredited after completing the work required to meet the Standards. It was important that the organisation and staff were recognised for the work they had done.

Being fully accredited has given staff a sense of organisational pride. It has improved staff morale, as they know that they are providing a good quality service to people who need assistance. Achieving accreditation has also served to set a benchmark for staff and the organisation. The challenge now is to ensure the organisation maintains the standards that it has set.

At the time of the audit, Communities Scotland ¹ provided a 50 per cent subsidy towards the cost of the audit. Without this financial assistance it is unlikely that the organisation would have been able to afford to go ahead with the audit. Overall the cost of accreditation audits and further reaccreditation was seen as excessive, as was the one-off cost of accreditation, especially for smaller organisations. The idea of a monthly fee that would incorporate the cost of accreditation, interim accreditation and reaccreditation was viewed positively by staff. It was seen as a way of spreading the financial cost of continued accreditation for the organisation.

2.2.5 Lessons learned

• It is vital to carry out an assessment of what an organisation needs to do in order to meet the Standards. It is important at this stage to be honest about where the organisation is and what it needs to do in order to achieve the Standards. From this it is then possible to develop an action plan. At this stage it may be useful to have some kind if independent input from a Development Worker.

• A realistic timescale also needs to be developed to guide the process. Several issues should be taken into consideration when developing a timescale. These include:

• staff resources;
• level of work required;
• level of accreditation;
• organisational workload; and
• cycle of committee meetings.

• Discussions with staff found that they enjoyed being involved in developing the action plan and liked being kept informed of progress through weekly progress meetings. The organisation found that achieving staff support for the project was very important. In order to achieve this, it is important for staff to understand what the Standards are and why the organisation is working towards them. Staff should also be made aware of the benefits in terms of personal development. It was felt that the seminars on the Standards provided a good starting point for this. However, it is also important to ensure a shared understanding within the organisation itself.

• Working towards the Standards served as an excellent organisational development tool. Once the Standards were fully implemented there was a huge improvement in the organisation's management and administrative processes and the quality of services delivered. This has been reflected in feedback from service users.

• There can also be some difficulty in understanding some of the terms used in the various Standards. The organisation knew of some organisations who had considered implementing the Standards but decided not to because they did not fully understand what the requirements were. This was seen as another area where a development worker could play an effective role in clarifying what is required of organisations at the outset of the process.

2.3 Case Study 3

2.3.1 Introduction

This service is a small part of a large national children's charity. The service provides support to families living in temporary accommodation or threatened with homelessness. The service was established in 1992 as the only service in their local authority area providing support to families experiencing or threatened with homelessness. The service is not accredited.

The organisation has 12 members of staff. They provide support to approximately 70-80 families each year, as well as support to more than 30 female offenders. They are funded through the local authority and charitable funds from their wider organisation.

The service provides a wider range of practical support and services to vulnerable families (including, for example, play opportunities and services for children). The provision of housing information and advice is one part of this package of support.

2.3.2 Adopting the Standards

Staff at the service were aware of the changes in housing legislation and the development of the National Standards. They have close links with other support and advice providers in the local area and there was discussion about the importance of the Standards.

Staff looked through the National Standards and undertook a brief self-assessment to identify areas where improvement was needed. Management were pleased at how many of the Standards they already met - and would build on this by working to meet any gaps. Generally, it was felt that some Standards were easy to meet due to existing knowledge. However, where Standards were new to the organisation and required learning and resources to develop new procedures, this was challenging. When they first took up the National Standards the organisation was exploring the possibility of working towards accreditation.

Management became aware that staff could get training on the provision of information and advice and that there would initially be some funding support for this.

It was recognised at this time that staff were being asked complex questions by people and they were not always able to answer them. They decided to put staff through the training in order to improve the service they were providing.

All members of staff providing advice on housing issues are trained up to Type II (if they don't already have an equivalent qualification). The manager is trained to Type III and the service administrator is trained to Type I. Members of staff have received training covering most of the areas of housing law - but missed out those that are not directly relevant to their work (for example, Repair and Improvement grants).

The service provides advice up to Type II but stops short of in-depth advocacy work and refers on to other agencies.

2.3.3 Experience of working to the Standards

Staff are very positive about the training received which was described as "excellent". The main aims were to improve staff knowledge and understanding - and they feel that they are now better equipped to provide housing information and advice.

The service will continue to send all staff on the training for the Standards. They see this as important for their personal and career development. The organisation has a learning and development budget which they use to meet the costs of training.

Staff have a better understanding of the levels of information and advice and recognise the boundaries for these. When someone contacts the service the administrator is able to give information, pass them on to a worker within the project, or refer on to another agency. In particular the administrator has developed knowledge of housing providers and other advice agencies in the local area.

Working to the Standards has also focused attention on the information resources they have on housing legislation and general housing issues. As well as using the internet for legislation and policy developments, the service has a book budget and procedures are in place to ensure that resources are up-to-date.

2.3.4 Decision not to apply for accreditation

Staff at the service initially saw the Standards as being about achieving accreditation and are broadly positive about the idea of accrediting organisations in relation to information and advice. However, they have decided at this time not to apply for accreditation.

The provision of housing information and advice is not the main focus of the work of the wider organisation. In addition, it is only part of the package of support provided by the family support service. There has been no driver for accreditation from the wider organisation of which the service is part, or from funders who may not view the service as a housing information and advice provider.

The service undergoes other audits. In particular the service is audited by the Care Commission for both the provision of care to children and, since 2003, for housing support services. Although there are differences between the housing support part of the Care Commission audit and the National Standards, it is felt that they cover the same core competencies. They feel that this is particularly applicable where a service is providing support at Type II rather than advocacy work.

The national charity also conducts an internal audit. Currently, there is increasing emphasis being placed on centrally reviewing standards and systems and this will become an annual review. Internal standards are tailored to meet those of the Care Commission. Ultimately, the organisation sees the focus of the service as being helping children and families - the main focus is on care rather than information and advice provision. Although they want to see high quality in all services there has been no driver for accreditation within the organisation.

Staff providing housing support will be expected to register with the Scottish Social Services Council and the organisation ensures that they have the skills and knowledge appropriate to their role within the service. This part of the register will open in 2009. The service is currently ensuring that staff are trained to an appropriate level in order to become registered by providing the opportunity for a number of staff to work towards SVQ 3 Health and Social Care.

Given these existing standards frameworks, and the fact that the service has recently been through Care Commission Inspections and a review for Supporting People, there has not been support to undergo another (voluntary) audit. The service is comparatively small and another audit would place significant demands on staff.

The dilemma for the organisation is that information and advice is not its sole function. Managers feel that where an organisation's core function is information and advice and where they provide Type III support, it should be assumed that they will be accredited. However, there is another layer of organisations that provide information and advice to a different level and there might need to be "a different way of looking at it".

There was also a view that the service meets the majority of the Standards and that accreditation wasn't especially necessary. As part of a large national organisation the service has robust policies and procedures in place. Staff also feel that they have strong evidence from the recording of the casework that they do and measuring client outcomes (such as recovered benefits, income maximisation). It was also felt that some of the Standards aren't used on a regular basis by the service.

The service does not receive funds as a provider of information and advice but as a support agency for vulnerable families and children. So funders have not been looking to see if it is accredited for information and advice - and would be unlikely to fund an audit to become accredited.

Given these qualifications, and the fact that the organisation would have to pay for an audit out of its own budgets, the cost is considered 'prohibitive'.

2.3.5 Lessons learned

• Training for the National Standards has brought clarity and consistency for staff providing information and advice. In particular, it has helped define boundaries for the different types of provision - and helped develop an understanding of other local agencies.
• Despite support for accreditation there may be no driver for accreditation for small services within larger organisations. This is particularly the case where the provision of information and advice is not the main focus of the wider organisation. In this case there was also significant overlap with other audit processes.
• Although information and advice is an important part of the service provided, it may not be fully recognised by funders - again this limits incentives to become accredited.

2.4 Case Study 4

2.4.1 Introduction

This voluntary organisation was set up just over thirty years ago and currently runs four different projects. One project, set up in 2003, deals specifically with advice and support across a range of issues. It has a particular focus on housing - in order to meet identified needs and to satisfy funding conditions. It also provides advice and support on drugs and alcohol, mental wellbeing, sexual health and living independently. The service is not accredited.

The advice and support team consists of one full-time member and two members of staff who work 20 hours each week. The services of the advice team are open to anyone who is in contact with the organisation or who lives in the centre of the city. It also supports and links into the other three projects. The organisation relies on four funding streams - Supporting People, Children in Need, HomePoint and The Robertson Trust.

2.4.2 Decision to adopt the National Standards

The organisation started working towards the Standards in 2003, when its advice and support team project was set up. A close relationship with HomePoint quickly developed. The merit of the National Standards lay in the framework it provided. It was important to be able to measure against something that could highlight any gaps or suggest any improvements.

The organisation also became involved in the local Housing Advice Network and sits on the steering group. The network was set up to bring statutory and voluntary agencies together to discuss issues on housing information and advice. As part of that, the Network promotes the Standards and offers training on how to adopt them.

2.4.3 Decision to undergo audit

Initially, there were real intentions to undergo audit. But the high costs involved dissuaded the organisation from applying. Early in 2007, the organisation was approached by HomePoint who offered to meet all the costs involved in the audit - and it felt very positively about starting to work towards accreditation. It applied for six Type I and six Type II areas of law.

2.4.4 Experience and stage reached in the process

The organisation started focusing on implementing the Standards as it prepared for the audit. It started by carrying out the self-assessment. This was a particularly useful exercise, as it highlighted to the project that its work successfully measured against National Standards.

Midway through the audit process, the organisation was asked to submit further evidence supporting the provision of quality advice. This proved to be problematic as the nature of its services did not involve setting up formal interviews. The organisation's open door policy meant that it was difficult for auditors to be able to sit in on interviews. The auditors also wanted to see examples of records of personal files. The organisation was reluctant to submit personal files to the auditors as these often detailed other personal issues - such as drugs and alcohol. But the biggest concern was the level of detail that the auditors wanted these personal files to cover - specifying the exact advice given at any time. The organisation didn't feel that its practices required that change. Instead it searched for alternative ways to evidence the quality of advice.

Although several discussions were held between the organisation and the auditors, the audit process came to a standstill. There was a feeling that the audit process had become too inflexible and rigid for the organisation's practices. And the auditors did not appear to understand how the organisation worked and how the Standards had to accommodate their circumstances. At the same time, the organisation was required to adopt a new way of recording files as part of their Supporting People funding and felt that too much time had been spent on the audit.

Ultimately, the organisation decided to pull out of the audit process.

The self-assessment carried out in preparation for the audit has been carried out once more by the organisation. The exercise did not highlight any issues around the information and advice provided by the organisation. Again, this suggested that it was, overall, meeting the Standards. Outwith the audit process, all members of staff have completed the National Standards Type II training.

But the organisation has put in place other mechanisms to make sure that the services it delivers are useful to its customers. It has, for example, set up a Young People's Advisory Group that offers a customer perspective on its services. And every year, the whole project undertakes an internal assessment of its services.

The organisation does not rule out possible accreditation in the future, but the costs, both in kind and financial, need to be put into context. Housing information and advice is a small part of their work and therefore cannot warrant the current resources needed to obtain the accreditation. It would seriously need to consider the added value accreditation can bring.

2.4.5 Impacts and added value

Although the organisation did not complete the accreditation process, it felt that there has been value in going through part of the process. It wasn't until they were working towards accreditation that staff actually focused on implementing the Standards. The focus made them take time out to look at their work and reflect on what they were doing. For staff and the organisation as a whole, it was about receiving affirmation and confirmation about their work.

As part of the audit process, the organisation changed the way it handled information. Folders were developed that could be used for interviews. This has been very beneficial to staff and has made information more accessible to customers. And the organisation did start looking at how it could change the ways files were being recorded.

In terms of funding, accreditation would have been a formal recognition of the quality of its services. The organisation does not advertise that it works towards the National Standards but does believe that anything that can highlight good practice can be very useful for funding applications. Because of funding pressures, it is particularly important for smaller voluntary organisations to be able to show that the work they do is good value.

But the direct links between the process and benefits for customers are more difficult to make. The process made staff more aware of the difference their work makes and how the work they do relates to other organisations, but it did not directly improve practice.

While the organisation can see the value in both the Standards and the accreditation process, this is only one assurance framework out of many that the organisation could work towards. Like many other voluntary organisations, the project relies on several different funding streams and each of these carry with them their own sets of requirements and ways of reporting back. This organisation is, for example, already regulated by the Care Commission as a condition of Supporting People funding. This audit takes place annually. As part of that, the organisation is measured against the housing support Standards - and makes sure that it meets those Standards. It has also been awarded Investors in Volunteers accreditation.

2.4.6 Lessons learned

• It is good to take time out and reflect on your work. For smaller organisations it can be difficult to take time out to look at how they carry out their work. Being able to follow a framework such as the National Standards was instrumental in taking that time and supported them in doing it.

• The value lies in the process. It is easy to say that you are working towards the Standards. But without actually focusing on them and following clear mechanisms to do so, it may not be a meaningful exercise. This project did not start focusing on implementing the Standards until they had applied for audit.

• The context within which services are provided matters. And this will impact on the priority given to any quality assurance system. This organisation felt that the advice and support part of their work was a small part compared to all the other services provided. And this influenced its decision on how important it was to receive accreditation.

2.5 Case Study 5

2.5.1 Introduction

This Citizen's Advice Bureau provides a wide range of information and advice to members of the public across a small local authority area. The CAB serves rural and semi-rural communities. It aims particularly to help those experiencing deprivation and hardship to access information, advice and assistance about their rights and responsibilities, and the services that are available to them.

The CAB has been in existence since 1967. It has six full-time staff and a pool of 50 trained volunteer or paid part-time advisors. The Bureau is an established resource for the community and receives 9,000 enquiries annually - resulting in approximately 1,600 client contacts. The service is funded primarily through the local authority, with some occasional funding from the Lottery and other charitable sources for specific project work.

A significant part of the CAB's work is the provision of housing information and advice including general housing issues, homelessness and housing benefit cases. This part of the service is led by the Housing Advice Worker. The CAB only sought accreditation in relation to the provision of housing information and advice, and not the other aspects of its work, such as money and benefit advice. The Bureau became accredited in 2005 but has not continued to the stage of interim validation.

2.5.2 Adopting the National Standards and applying for accreditation

Unlike many other organisations the process for the CAB did not start with reviewing practice in order to work towards the Standards. The service was one of five Bureaux that took part in the pilot series of audits. This aimed to assess the work of the CABx against the National Standards, refine the audit framework and ensure that there is no duplication between the Citizens Advice Scotland ( CAS) audit and the National Standards accreditation process.

For management at the CAB, the audit and accreditation process was not expected to elicit improvement on the quality of service provided - or the procedures that were already in place. Involvement was more about validating the work that they were currently doing - staff did not undertake any training or additional work (for example, developing an action plan) in order to reach accreditation. The CAB has its own training procedures in place with all advisors trained to Type I in all areas of law.

Staff at the Bureau had heard about the accreditation pilot, had looked at the National Standards and wanted to prove to themselves that they met them. Another factor in their decision to get involved was the fact that (unlike some other CABx) they had sufficient resources available to go through audit.

They were also keen to get the badge of accreditation and wanted the "kudos" of being the first CAB to be accredited at Level 3.

Another key factor in getting involved was an expectation that uptake of accreditation would grow and that it could ultimately become compulsory for information and advice providers. There was some discussion at the time that funders (and particularly local authorities) would, in future, only want to fund organisations that are accredited - management at the CAB wanted to be 'ahead of the game' in this respect. There is some scepticism that, since accreditation for the National Standards has not yet developed in this way across Scotland, its value may be limited.

As part of the pilot, the organisation did not have to meet the costs of the audit although staff said that this was not a determining factor for involvement. Initially, they had expected to pay a fee (as they have for other accreditation schemes, notably, Investors in People) and would have been happy to pay at the time. Half of the cost of the audit was met by CAS and the other half was met by Communities Scotland.

2.5.3 Experience of the process

A Quality of Advice audit was carried out in October 2004. This involved:

• discussion with a CAS auditor and review of the CAS audit for the service;
• interviews with management and staff;
• review of documentation, information resources and procedures; and
• review of 12 cases relating to different areas of housing law.

A key difficulty faced was an expectation by the audit team that advisors could be categorised in terms of job titles, areas of competence or specialism, and that individuals would be responsible for particular cases. However, at the CAB, advisors are not assigned individual cases and clients may come in and see different advisors. Advisors are not trained to have a specialism in a particular area but are trained to access the correct information / advice from the CABx database - so they are generalist advisers. The CAB also operates a rota of volunteer advisors. Clients using the CAB 'belong' to the bureau rather than to individual advisors. This meant that the audit team had difficulty identifying individual advisors to talk to. Staff at the CAB provided paperwork outlining the way that the advisor team works and their relationship with case clients.

A second quality of advice audit visit was arranged for March 2005 in order to carry out further case checks and staff / volunteer interviews. Following this second audit the CAB was awarded Type III accreditation across the 19 areas of housing law (with the exception of two areas where there is a ceiling of either Type I or II).

Staff at the CAB raised some concerns about the competencies of those conducting the audit. There was a perception that the staff at the Bureau were better trained than the assessors since they have a broader focus than just housing information and advice.

Another issue that was raised by staff at the CAB was the comparatively weak 'branding' of the accreditation. There was no formal award of the accreditation and the certificate was emailed to the Bureau manager. Compared to other accreditation schemes that they have been part of, the badge of accreditation for the National Standards has not been particularly visible.

2.5.4 Interim validation

The requirement for an interim validation to be conducted in order to review accreditation has been a stumbling block for the CAB. Staff had been under the impression that accreditation would last for a three year period and were unaware that a review would take place after 18 months. They were particularly concerned at the cost of the interim validation which they would be expected to meet independently. So, the organisation has not been reaccredited.

The Bureau manager told us that they would have continued with the accreditation process if it was justifiable, but they do not feel that it has had an impact on the service that they are providing. There is also concern that money would be leaving the voluntary sector for an accreditation by a private consultancy firm - and that it would not be a good use of funding. Similarly, there is no compulsion to hold accreditation.

Staff consider the review of accreditation after 18 months as coming too soon after the initial audit. Nothing substantial has changed in the way the CAB operates and staff would be more supportive of a risk based approach where review takes place if there is an operational change or large turnover of staff.

2.5.5 Impacts / added value of accreditation

Senior staff at the CAB do not feel that accreditation has brought added value to their service. They were already audited by CAS which they feel sets the quality standards for their work - and is a robust system. There is a sense that National Standards accreditation would be more relevant for CABx if they did not already undergo the CAS audit - but that this is unlikely to change due to the role of CAS as a membership organisation. Scepticism about the value of the accreditation scheme has been heightened by the issue of funding an interim validation and the lack of compulsion from funding bodies.

The CAB does not think that accreditation has made any difference to staff since they are already trained to a proficient level. Similarly, there is not scope for them to change any of their policies and procedures unless there is change across CABx in Scotland. Given the fact that there has been no change in the service provided they do not feel that there has been an impact on the quality of provision to clients.

2.5.6 Lessons learned

• For organisations which are operating to high standards of quality (and do not need to enact significant changes in order to achieve accreditation) there need to be clear and tangible benefits to holding accreditation to the National Standards.
• A 'one-size-fits-all' approach to audit and the assessment of individual auditors proved problematic when auditing a CAB. Assessment has to be flexible and take account of how case clients are managed. This is particularly the case where the organisation has a team of volunteer or sessional advisers.
• The interim validation was considered to come within too short a timescale - particularly where there had been no significant change at the service. There is scope for looking at a more risk based approach to the review of accredited organisations.

2.6 Case Study 6

2.6.1 Introduction

This Housing Association employs 16 members of staff and owns approximately 700 properties, 70 of which are shared ownership. The Association also provides factoring services to an additional 350 privately owned properties.

An information and advice service is offered to tenants and prospective tenants. Due to the location of the Association's only office, which is not easily accessible by transport links, most of the advice is provided by phone or by letter. Tenants are also visited in their home by housing officers who can provide information and advice.

The most common advice offered by the Association relates to housing allocations, housing transfers, rent arrears and factoring issues. The Association is not accredited to the National Standards.

2.6.2 Adopting the Standards

Following encouragement from Communities Scotland, the Association began to consider what was required to achieve the National Standards. It recognised that adopting the Standards would improve the quality of information and advice that was delivered to customers.

During this period the Association was involved in discussions to develop a Common Housing Register ( CHR) with other RSLs operating across a local authority area. It was felt that if all the RSLS involved could work to the Standards this would benefit the process of developing the CHR and ensure that all RSLs were providing information to customers to a common standard.

The process of working towards the Standards began with staff attending the 'getting started' training seminar. Following this, the Association completed a self-assessment checklist from which an action plan was developed to guide its work to meeting the Standards. Staff were very positive about the support that was made available by HomePoint. The seminars and site visits by HomePoint staff were highlighted as being particularly useful.

The Housing Association staff began to undertake Type I training. Staff were very positive about the training provided. However, more experienced housing staff found the training for Type I a little simplistic, with one member of staff completing the training in only two days.

The staff felt that the assessments that formed part of their training should not be comprised of multiple choice questions. It was felt that a written statement offered a far more detailed method of assessment and gave staff an opportunity to show what they had learned.

A peer review group was also established with local RSLs to help each other through the process of beginning to work to the Standards. At the beginning of the process, this group was seen as a very useful way of sharing information and solving problems. However, as some members of the group moved ahead quicker than others, the group lost a lot of its effectiveness.

Discussions with staff revealed that they found implementing changes to organisational procedures, such as introducing new policies or procedures was a time consuming process. These often had to be agreed by the management committee and it could take several meetings to sign these off. This meant that it could take a long period of time to implement the processes required to meet the information and advice Standards.

2.6.3 Experience of working to the National Standards

The Housing Association has adopted several of the National Standards but did not complete the process of adopting all the Standards. Other organisational priorities meant that the organisation stopped working towards the Standards in order to commit staff time and resources to other areas of work. It found that the amount of staff time it took to implement each of the Standards was much greater than they had expected. Discussions with staff revealed that more effective planning was required, particularly in relation to the resources required to meet the Standards and the timescales involved.

Senior staff suggested that they may resume working towards meeting the Standards again in the future. Should they do so, they would ensure that the process was effectively project managed. In particular greater emphasis would be placed on completing tasks within agreed timescales and the amount of time staff required to commit to the task was adequately planned for.

There was a feeling among the staff that the Standards were not designed with small organisations in mind. This was due to the amount of time and number of staff required to ensure the organisation works to the Standards.

Although the Association believes it currently meets the majority of the Standards, there are no systems in place to self-assess and ensure they remain compliant with these. Nevertheless, the Association believes the Standards it is now working to have led to an increase in the quality of information and advice provided. It has also given staff increased confidence to provide advice and know that the advice they are providing is correct.

The Association found many of the Standards fairly easy to adopt. This was partly because it had many of the policies and processes already in place. The Performance Standards for social landlords and Investors in People accreditation considerably helped this process.

Discussions with staff at the Housing Association revealed some difficulties in continuing to ensure that the organisation met the Standard relating to community profiling - as they felt that they had tenancies and worked in a number of locations with varying social and economic profiles. It was felt that staff may benefit from having some clarification on the type of information that they were required to provide in terms of community profiling. Similar difficulties were expressed over identifying budgets for housing information and advice.

2.6.4 Decision not to apply for accreditation

The main benefits of adopting the Standards were perceived to be improvements in organisational systems and the quality of information and advice delivered to the customers. It was felt that these were achieved through the process of working towards the Standards rather than the audit process itself. The Association felt that it had achieved these benefits and being accredited would only provide the organisation with a 'badge' demonstrating its achievement.

In addition, senior staff were aware that the Association did not meet some of the Standards, particularly in terms of community profiling and budgeting. Therefore the organisation took the decision not to go through the audit process.

The cost of the audit was seen as being significant. There was concern that it was difficult to justify this to the organisation's committee. The Association was also concerned about the ongoing cost of re-accreditation in the future. Another key consideration in the decision not to proceed to audit was that Communities Scotland does not require housing associations to be accredited.

In the longer term the organisation believes that working to the National Standards will aid the ongoing development of the CHR, particularly if other landlords involved in the CHR adopt the Standards. The organisation indicated that, if other members of the CHR were to show an interest in being accredited, the Association would consider going through the audit process.

2.6.5 Lessons learned

• The process of adopting the National Standards requires a structured approach. An organisation implementing the Standards needs to work to an agreed programme of work, including realistic milestones and timescales.

• There is a need for effective and focused project management and for a member of staff to take ownership of the process. A realistic amount of staff time must be dedicated to completing the work that is required to ensure an organisation meets the relevant Standards.

• A peer review group is an effective way of developing knowledge of the Standards and solving problems. However, it is important that all members of the group are committed to the process and moving forward within similar timescales.

• It is important to ensure staff have a clear understanding of each of the Standards and what needs to be done to achieve them.

2.7 Case Study 7

2.7.1 Introduction

This CAB was established in 1996. Twelve members of staff provide mainly housing and money advice to a diverse range of clients.

In 2006/07 the organisation dealt with around 9,500 client enquiries. Of these, around one third related to debt issues, such as credit card debt and bank charges; over a quarter related to benefits advice; and the remainder concerned housing issues.

Common housing enquiries relate to mortgage and rent arrears, people threatened with homelessness and environmental issues. The organisation employs a housing advice worker to assist clients with their enquiries.

Although the CAB provides advice to a range of clients, it tends to be younger people and single parents that request advice on issues relating to homelessness. Older people can request members of the team to visit them at home in order to provide them with advice, if they are not able to travel to the advice centre.

The CAB became accredited in 2005.

2.7.2 Adopting the Standards

The CAB already placed importance on quality standards and was accredited as an Investor in People and had adopted the Scottish Quality Management System ( SQMS).

With an increase in requests for housing and money advice it wanted to ensure that robust standards were in place across these areas. Working towards the National Standards was seen as the best way of achieving this.

No other information and advice providers in the local authority area had adopted the Standards. Therefore it was also seen as an opportunity to set an example to other advice providers in the area.

Discussions with staff revealed that working towards the Standards was a beneficial process for the organisation. The nature of the various Standards meant that they could be used to identify staff training needs.

The self-assessment form was used to identify the work that had to be completed to ensure the organisation worked towards the Standards. However, it also identified areas where the organisation was already meeting them.

The process of putting in place the various systems and procedures necessary to meet the Standards was felt to be a straightforward one. As a result of previously adopting other quality standards, many of these systems were already in place.

Discussions with the Bureau Manager revealed that, initially, staff were concerned about having their work scrutinised by the auditors. There was some suspicion amongst staff about the quality of advice audit. At this stage the organisation brought staff together to ensure that they had a shared understanding of the Standards. The Bureau Manager also stressed to staff that the purpose of the audit was to improve working practices and not to identify poor staff performance.

The process from beginning to work to the Standards through to full accreditation took around nine months.

2.7.3 Experience of working to the National Standards

Discussions with staff revealed that working to the Standards has been a straightforward process. They have guided the work of the organisation and ensured that new members of staff have a clear idea of what is expected of them.

The organisation was supportive of the need for regular re-accreditation because of the potential for changes to affect the service provided. Staff turnover can result in a reduction of the standard of advice on offer and therefore it is essential to ensure organisations are continuing to meet the Standards. Re-accreditation can also be a useful process in terms of updating training needs.

Since the organisation received accreditation, the impact on staff has been highly positive. Staff feel more confident as they know the advice they are providing is of a high quality. Receiving accreditation has also improved the morale of staff and they now know that they do a good job.

Working to the Standards has improved the quality of service that clients receive from staff. However, it is unlikely that clients are actually aware that the quality of advice they receive has improved. People that use the service are largely unaware of the National Standards.

To measure customer satisfaction, regular surveys are conducted of service users to gather their views on the service they received and to identify areas where improvements can be made to service delivery.

The Bureau Manager felt that templates for written documentation could help organisations put the necessary processes in place to comply with the Standards. It was also felt that good practice examples of organisations that were working to the Standards would also help organisations understand what was required of them in order to meet the Standards.

The cost of the initial accreditation was covered by the CAB's own funds. The CAB will continue to fund the cost of future audits to ensure continued accreditation to the National Standards. However, discussions with the Bureau Manager revealed a perception that the cost of accreditation could be a barrier for some organisations seeking accreditation. If a way could be found to reduce the cost of accreditation, particularly for smaller organisations, it may encourage more organisations to adopt the Standards.

The Bureau Manager felt that many people perceive meeting the Standards to involve a great deal of work. It is important for organisations to fully understand what is required in relation to each Standard prior to deciding whether to work to the Standards or not.

2.7.4 Decision to apply for accreditation

Discussions with staff revealed that the whole point of working to the Standards is to become accredited. Without this it would have been a pointless exercise to implement the changes needed to work to the Standards. As an organisation the CAB believed they were meeting the Standards and decided to undergo audit. Staff at the CAB took the view that if there were areas where the organisation was not meeting the Standards it was better to know about it and make the changes required.

In addition several members of staff had spent a lot of time implementing the Standards. Receiving accreditation was one way of rewarding staff for their efforts.

The Bureau Manager felt that it was important for the organisation to become accredited in order to ensure that new members of staff are aware of the standard of advice they are expected to deliver. When a new member of staff or volunteer joins the organisation, the Standards can be used as a learning tool to ensure an appropriate level of advice is delivered. This also ensures that when members of staff leave the organisation, the knowledge of the Standards can be retained.

It is also possible that accreditation to the National Standards may be a future funding requirement for information and advice providers.

2.7.5 Lessons learned

• Working to the Standards requires a constructive approach to organisational performance. It is important to view the self assessment process as 'where can we improve?' rather than 'what are we doing wrong?'.

• It is essential that staff 'buy in' to the process and are supportive of the principle of the Standards.

• The audit process is an opportunity to identify areas where the organisation is delivering a good standard of service, as well areas where improvement is required to meet the Standards

• It is important that organisations fully understand what is required of them in order to meet the Standards.

2.8 Case Study 8

2.8.1 Introduction

This local authority's homelessness service is the first information and advice service to be accredited within the Council. Although the whole Housing Department took part in one of the initial pilots, so far it is only this agency that has been successful in receiving accreditation. Accreditation was awarded in 2004.

The agency undertakes a wide range of duties and offers information and advice and accommodation services to people who:

• are homeless;
• are threatened with homelessness; and
• need general advice about housing options.

At the time of accreditation, the service was divided into two teams - The Housing Options Team and The Temporary Accommodation Team. Both took part in the audit and have subsequently received accreditation.

The agency employs over 40 members of staff and a number of wardens. The two teams see between 7,000 and 8,000 customers every year.

The service is accredited at Type I level for five areas of law and Type II for twelve areas of law. Most staff have completed the HomePoint CD Rom training. Additional classroom based training on housing advice was commissioned from Shelter.

2.8.2 Decision to adopt the National Standards and undergo audit

The service is committed to providing quality of advice to its customers. It wanted to use the National Standards as a framework to provide high quality information and advice. It had always been the agency's intention to undergo audit. It was important to receive external validation of its work and to be able to show customers that information and advice was provided to a recognised standard. Undergoing audit also made the commitment to implementing the Standards more focused and gave the agency a goal to work towards.

This commitment also meant that the service had an aim to encourage its partners to work towards the Standards. This would have been more difficult if the agency was not working towards accreditation and it wanted to show that "it has its own house in order" before encouraging partner agencies to adopt the Standards. The agency also felt that being accredited would give staff a sense of achievement and would show that this was a method of recognising the high quality advice that the staff were already providing.

The service used the self-assessment checklist to identify gaps in the agency's housing advice and information service. The aim was then to use the accreditation process to fill these gaps and enable the agency to benchmark against national examples of good practice and implement new processes where necessary.

2.8.3 Working towards accreditation

The agency started working towards accreditation in 2001. A working group was established to oversee the process. A series of staff briefings, training sessions and awareness raising sessions were held in advance of the audit. Officers attended the training seminars and with the working group the self-assessment document was completed. It provided the basis for the action plan that the agency worked towards in preparing for the audit. The whole process - from first contact with HomePoint to becoming accredited - took nearly four years.

To comply with the Standards, they had to develop a range of policies and procedures that had not been in place prior to adopting the Standards. At the time, the agency felt that some were less helpful - but now feels that these have been very useful. Alongside implementing a housing information and advice strategy, it encouraged a new culture within the agency. The Housing Advice and Information Strategy was developed using the Standards as a framework. The Strategy called for a more client-centred, tailored approach to meeting individual needs.

The agency's commitment to encouraging others to work towards the Standards led it to set up a Housing Advice Network. This was done as part of the implementation of a multi-agency housing advice strategy in 2005. The network brings together statutory and voluntary agencies to develop a single, joined up approach to housing advice in the city. It has incorporated a section into service level agreements stating that all agencies who receive grant funding from the agency should have a plan in place to work towards implementing the National Standards.

The agency feels very differently about the two parts of the audit. Whereas it thought the Quality of Advice audit had been a very positive experience, it was felt that the Process audit had been a more onerous, less efficient part of the audit.

The Quality of Advice audit visit was undertaken in July 2004. Prior to that, the agency had asked the auditors to carry out a pre-audit visit. During this half-day visit, the agency introduced the auditors to the staff, the service and held a presentation setting out the background to the strategy and the work done to implement the Standards. This pre-audit visit had been beneficial in that the auditors understood the agency better and had spent some time understanding the systems. Other reasons for the positive experience included:

• an understanding of how the audit would be carried out - and what was expected of them;
• auditors had been very approachable and friendly; and
• staff had enjoyed the process and had been confident about the quality of their work.

The Process audit was more difficult. It had been time-consuming and resource intense due to the focus on policies, procedures and documentation. In particular, they felt that there had been little communication between the agency and the auditors and that the audit was not as well focussed or organised. The organisation had not been told what documentation the auditor wanted to see or who the auditor would want to speak to on the day. This resulted in a less structured audit, with a lot of time spent on producing requested documentation.

The agency had been given extremely positive feedback from the Quality of Advice auditors. But based on the Process audit, the agency had to do more work and produce more evidence to receive accreditation. The agency spent three months gathering the outstanding information - and following this qualified for accreditation in November 2004.

This raised questions about the balance between the process side and the quality of information side of the audit. The agency also raised concerns about the consistency of the audit process. In speaking to another agency that had undergone the Process audit, this agency was told that it had received a list of the documentation of what would be requested on the day - something this service had not received.

Overall, however, going through the accreditation process had been beneficial and worthwhile.

The agency underwent an interim validation visit in November 2006. The auditors highlighted a few minor areas that they had concerns about. As a response, the agency developed a service improvement plan that was submitted to auditors. Subsequently accreditation was extended.

The service was initially told that their interim validation would consist of two mystery shopping exercises. But because they had undergone quite considerable changes to its structure and the type of services it now provided, the auditors decided that it was more appropriate to carry out a selective audit visit. The organisation felt that this had been a fair judgement, as they had changed considerably in composition since the initial audit. Two auditors - one process auditor and one quality of advice auditor - came in for a one day visit.

Overall, the interim validation process went well. The agency was happy to see that there was some continuity in the auditors who came in. And as they had already gone through the process once, they felt better prepared for the audit. They had also specifically requested to know which documents they would be asked to provide on the day to allow for a more structured audit visit.

But again, the agency was disappointed by the lack of communication and organisation around the audit visit. For example, the auditors had (on the day) changed their minds about staff they wanted to speak to and the documentation that would be looked at.

Although they had felt confident that they would pass the audit, they were given negative feedback on very minor aspects of the service. These included making sure that staff saved their internet favourites on their computers - a recommendation that wasn't felt to be necessary.

2.8.4 Impact and added value

The organisation has no doubt that the decision to undergo audit has resulted in greater impacts than if it had self-assessed. It has given the service an external validation for its customers and staff, and the organisation is now able to speak from experience when working with partner organisations to adopt the Standards. Despite some criticisms of the audit process, the agency felt positively about the accreditation process as a whole.

The service had noted several positive impacts on staff:

• the process and outcome has boosted staff confidence by proving that they were delivering quality information and advice;
• staff were trained to deliver high quality housing advice;
• there was a culture change across the service in providing a holistic, person centred approach; and
• some of the process work improved aspects of work such as induction procedures and accessibility of reference material.

The service feels strongly that their customers have benefited from the accreditation process.

• For the organisation as a whole, it helped bring about a new way of thinking in terms of dealing with customers. It encouraged a much more proactive, person-centred approach - where staff try to find out underlying issues for each situation and deal with these as well as the housing issue.
• By following the processes that were set up, the service is confident that customers are receiving more consistent and appropriate information and advice - making it a better service.

Working towards the Standards also had an impact on other areas where the agency was undergoing inspection. The agency received an A Grade following a Communities Scotland inspection in 2005 - something it feels the accreditation process contributed to.

But it is difficult to evidence the impact. The agency does carry out exit surveys but very few of these are returned. Many are very subjective to the outcome (getting housed) and this does not always show a true reflection of the information and advice that they have been given. Instead, they rely on anecdotal evidence from staff, customers and partner agencies. These show a clear shift in the culture and commitment in providing good housing information and advice.

2.8.5 Lessons learned

• Accreditation for one can mean benefits for others. This agency is clearly committed to the Standards and advocates their benefits to its partners. Although more services within the agency are meant to become accredited, there have been delays in this.

• There are clear benefits that are difficult to evidence. By focusing on implementing all the Standards, the culture of this service changed visibly. Staff have become committed to a customer-focused approach. The organisation is convinced that the service it now offers is better and that customers are benefitting from this.

• Good organisation is important for both parties. It is important for an agency to be able to prepare as much as possible for the audit process. This case study highlighted some lack of communication between its staff and the auditors. This resulted in a more stressful audit visit and 'took the shine' from the audit process. The organisation pointed out the benefits of having a pre-audit visit for each audit.

2.9 Case Study 9

2.9.1 Introduction

This agency is part of a leading national advice network. It covers five local authority areas. The organisation provides information, advice and advocacy on all housing and homelessness issues - including legal advice. This includes:

• Homelessness
• Public and private sector rights
• Housing benefit
• Rent arrears
• Dampness and disrepair
• Landlord/tenant problems

It also provides support for other advice agencies and can make referrals to other organisations. The agency deals with anyone who has housing or homelessness issues and the agencies that work with them. About eight to nine hundred customers are seen by the agency each year.

The organisation employs seven members of staff, of which four are full time staff and three work part-time. It is managed by a UK wide Board.

Accreditation was awarded in 2007.

2.9.2 The National Standards

As part of the wider organisational commitment - this agency has always looked positively upon the idea of information and advice standards. It developed its own internal framework ten years ago (which now comply with the National Standards) and felt that there ought to be standards that applied nationally. It was therefore part of the driving force behind the development of the National Standards and participated in the working group that developed them.

The organisation started by self assessing against the Standards. Work to adopt them started in 2000 and it took nearly two years to implement all Standards. To support the process the agency set up working groups - each responsible for one area of the Standards. It also held a series of meetings and arranged away days with staff. It made staff more focused and by the time the audit visits were arranged they were working better together as a team. Although the organisation had to commit a lot of staff resources to do this, it was a straightforward process and the Standards themselves were seen to be appropriate. Having played a part in developing the Standards, it had been relatively easy to interpret and apply them.

2.9.3 Decision to undergo audit

In 2006, the national network decided that it wanted a joint audit of a number of its regional and local services. This coincided with one of its services - that had been through the pilot audit process and had been accredited - being due to come up for re accreditation. A meeting was held with HomePoint and following this it was decided that the accreditation process would cover four services. The organisation was then chosen to act as the "exemplar" for the audit of all four agencies.

Although this had been an organisational decision, the agency felt very positive about accreditation. The agency does not rely on grant funding, but nevertheless felt that an external validation was worthwhile.

Equally, the agency wanted to support the Standards and by showing that it was going to undergo the audit, it could promote the idea that the Standards were important.

2.9.4 Working towards accreditation

This organisation already had a long history with the Standards. It had already been working towards the Standards for some time and there was therefore less preparation needed. Rather than implementing new policies and procedures, it was sufficient to systematically go through all policies to make sure they were up to date. And since another service had already gone through the audit process, the agency had an insight into what this entailed. It was therefore felt that the audit process should have been an uncomplicated, clear-cut exercise. Unfortunately, this is not what the agency experienced - and consequently it has some criticisms of the audit process.

A key issue for the organisation was the differing experience in the two audit visits. The Quality of Advice audit had been well organised, run smoothly and left staff feeling very positive about themselves and the accreditation process in general. Instead, the Process audit was seen to be stressful, less well-organised and staff felt uncomfortable about the way it had been carried out.

It was felt that the process of meeting the Standards had become subjective in some areas - often subject to the perception of the auditors rather than being referred back to the Standards. Based on this the organisation felt that there was a gap between the Standards and evidencing it. The audit process was therefore seen to be at times random and arbitrary.

The auditor had been critical of many of the agency's processes stating 'I wouldn't do it that way'. The staff felt that it was very hard to respond to comments like these and felt that many comments had little substance.

That the Standards were open to interpretation was explained. The Standards that the Quality of Advice audit refers to are linked to tight legislative duties. This means that they are less open for interpretation. On the other hand, the Standards that the Process audit covers relate to operational structures that can take many different forms within the parameters of the Standards. These Standards are therefore more prone to being led by organisational preference.

In addition, the balance between the two audits was seen to be skewed - which in part was used to explain the high costs of the audit process. The organisation highlighted the level of detail that the Process audit covers. And it suggested that this has pushed up the costs of the audit.

Instead, the audit process should be based upon the quality of advice. By making sure that an agency is delivering quality of advice - and making this the focus of accreditation - it should be enough to establish the existence of policies and procedures. This could be complemented by carrying out spot checks.

Communication and meaningful contact between the organisation and the auditors had also been lacking. This applied to the whole audit process - from organising the visits, receiving information about what the audit visit would entail, to the reporting stage after the audit visits. The agency also had concerns about the quality and the contents of the reports. There was some inconsistency between the feedback the organisation had received from the audits and the recommendations in the audit report. Some issues that had been raised during the audits were not covered in the audit report - and vice versa.

The agency was awarded full accreditation in autumn 2007, but is still waiting for the official letter.

2.9.5 Impact and added value

Based on the audit process alone, the agency would be reluctant to seek re-accreditation on the same basis. But it is still committed to the National Standards and quality assurance. It offers both external and internal recognition. The organisation has noted many benefits from the accreditation process.

Although this agency is not dependent on grant funding, it emphasised the impact accreditation could have on grant funding. It also assures quality to partners - something that can be particularly important when making referrals to other agencies.

Internally, the organisation has seen positive outcomes for staff:

• the accreditation reflects well on staff - 'it shows that they are doing a good job';
• the process encouraged staff to work more closely and this has resulted in better team working;
• the accomplishment has contributed to more staff taking ownership of keeping processes up to date.

Customers have also benefitted. In particular, customer care provision has become better. For example, the agency has made the comments and complaints procedures more visible. And processes have been made more streamlined.

Most of these impacts were explained by the preparation of the audit - rather than the audit visits. The organisation had made many improvements to its services leading up to the audit. For example, the agency became aware of the need to review processes as its functions and composition changes. Preparing for the audit had brought an immediate urgency to look at all policies. The organisation will now systematically review its policies and procedures to spread the work involved.

It is difficult to evidence any impacts. The organisation did not monitor any statistical information before and after the accreditation process. It receives little customer feedback and even if it did, doubt that this would highlight any differences to outcomes.

2.9.6 Lessons learned

• Improvements can always be made. Agencies will differ in their experiences of the Standards and this will most likely affect how easily they can implement them. But regardless of experience, most organisations can benefit from the accreditation process. This agency learnt that even though they were familiar with both the Standards and the audit process, they learnt new and improved ways of carrying out their work.

• It is important to involve staff. This organisation made sure to involve its staff in the adoption of the Standards and this has made a lasting impact. Feeling that they had accomplished something for the organisation as whole has resulted in staff taking more ownership of making sure that they continue to meet the Standards. It has also resulted in better team working.

• Accreditation should be a positive experience. The accreditation of the National Standards is a voluntary process. Organisations that have decided to undergo audit, have done so knowing that there are costs involved - both financial and in kind. For different reasons, they have decided that the benefits will outweigh these. Each part of the audit process is important - and impacts upon the organisation. And each part of the process needs to bear this in mind. This organisation did not feel positively about the audit process - and this has resulted in ill-feelings about the accreditation process.

2.10 Case Study 10

2.10.1 Introduction

This organisation provides money advice to around 1,400 clients a year. The organisation has: seven money advisors, two of whom are temporary; two Income Maximisation Officers (both of whom are temporary as part of a pilot project); and three administration staff, one of whom is temporary. The work of is overseen by a Team Leader and Lead Officer.

The advice team provides a range of information and advice services, including:

• debt counselling;
• income maximisation;
• negotiating with creditors; and
• budgeting advice.

People using the services available tend to be unemployed people or people with debt that they are struggling to pay. Following a full assessment of a client's finances, the advice team will offer a series of options to resolve the financial problems the client is experiencing.

The service became accredited in 2007.

2.10.2 Adopting the Standards

The advice team was established in 1988 and has a history of being at the forefront of good practice. The advice team was one of the first in Scotland to employ qualified money advisors and implement a computerised information system.

Senior Managers were aware that there was a desire to extend the Standards to money advice agencies. Therefore, when the opportunity came along to be involved in the pilot scheme for money advisors the organisation was very keen to be involved.

The organisation had experience of working towards other quality awards, such as Investors in People. Senior Management in the advice team felt that external audits were an effective way of finding ways to improve the quality of service delivered.

The self-assessment tool was useful in identifying those areas where the organisation didn't meet the Standards. After identifying these areas, actions were then developed to bring the organisation up to the required standard.

The organisation found that a lot of the Standards were already in place so there wasn't a great deal of work that had to be completed by the organisation. There was some clarification of organisational procedures required, but in general preparing for the process audit was straightforward.

The auditors found that the quality of advice provided by the organisation had been inconsistent. This was because staff had different levels of knowledge of benefits issues and income maximisation. As a result, there was a need to provide training for some staff to bring them up to the level of the most experienced staff and an opportunity was taken to secure funding to pilot two temporary Income Maximisation Officer posts. This greatly improved the standard of advice provided by the advice team.

In relation to the audit itself, discussions with staff revealed a perception that the auditors were not experts on money advice. In some cases the comments made by the auditors were not correct and they didn't seem to understand the role of the money advice team in relation to the local authority.

Discussions with staff found that greater assistance in terms of support in preparing for audit would have been helpful. Staff felt that there was a role for some kind of independent support for organisations working towards the Standards and for those that were ready for audit.

Staff within the organisation were supportive of some kind of 'buddy scheme' where similar organisations could work together towards implementing the Standards. It was also felt that organisations that had been through the process and achieved accreditation could provide 'hands on' support to those working through the Standards.

2.10.3 Experience of working to the Standards

The advice team received conditional accreditation. The money advice team was required to make some small amendments to some policies and complete a staff training programme. This was done very quickly and full accreditation has now been awarded.

Members of staff were pleased to receive some recognition of the work they had done. The money advice team is already highly qualified and the accreditation complements some of the other qualifications members of the team have. There were also articles and photos in trade journals, in-house publications and newspapers, which improved the morale of staff.

Except for the substantial increases in gains for clients through improved benefit uptake, there hasn't been any other measurable impact on clients. People using the service are unaware of the National Standards. Clients do receive more comprehensive advice since the Standards have been implemented.

Achieving the Standards allowed the money advice team to secure funding to recruit two specialist Income Maximisation Officers for one year. Securing future funding from the Scottish Government may also be dependent on the advice team being accredited and this was another factor in taking the decision to work to the Standards.

The organisation found that it was important to keep staff involved in the process of meeting the Standards. The seminars were a good way of doing this. Staff were told why changes were taking place and why they were being asked to change some of their working practices. This ensured that staff supported the programme of change that was being introduced.

The auditors assessed the service's quality of advice by examining a sample of cases and then feeding back their overall opinions to the management. The management said that in future audits they will request more specific feedback on identified individual cases in order to be better informed to make decisions on individual training needs.

2.10.4 Decision to apply for accreditation

It was important for the organisation and staff to be recognised for the work it had achieved. The organisation was able to raise its profile by achieving the award. However, it would have been possible for the organisation to provide the same level of service without being fully accredited.

The money advice team was also the first money advice provider in Scotland to be accredited for providing money advice.

The future cost of maintaining the accreditation may mean that the advice team is not able to maintain its accreditation although its aim is to continue to work to the highest recognised standards. Budget restrictions are likely to mean that the money advice team is unable to afford to pay to be audited in effect every 18 months. It is possible that spreading the cost of this may allow the organisation to sustain its accreditation.

2.10.5 Lessons learned

• When carrying out a self assessment it is important to be honest about your organisation and quality of information and advice it is currently offering.

• It is essential to keep staff informed about why the quality of information and advice is being assessed and what accreditation will mean for the organisation.

• Previous experience of working to other quality awards can benefit an organisation working towards the National Standards.

2.11 Case Study 11

2.11.1 Introduction

This service is part of a larger charitable organisation that supports people experiencing homelessness. The service provides training courses and outreach workshops which explore various aspects of resettlement. The training helps people who are homeless, or have experienced homelessness, to deal with the emotional and practical process of moving out of homelessness and maintaining independent living.

The service runs an innovative 'peer educator' programme where workshops and 'taster' sessions are delivered in hostels and accommodation units by trained volunteers (peer educators) who have previously been homeless and attended the courses. The aim of the workshops is to raise awareness about the advice and support that is available to people experiencing homelessness - building confidence and helping people make informed decisions.

The service has five members of staff and 22 volunteer peer educators. It receives Rough Sleepers Initiative funding through the local authority's Homelessness Partnership. Accreditation was awarded in 2006.

2.11.2 Adopting the Standards

Senior staff at the service told us that they had initially "stumbled into" accreditation for the National Standards. In 2004 they had been receiving grant support from Communities Scotland and as a condition of grant were asked to work towards the National Standards. The service was a willing participant as they felt that the ethos of the Standards fitted well with what they are trying to achieve.

For senior staff at the service, working to the Standards was about working towards accreditation. They thought that it was important to have the 'stamp of approval' and recognition of the quality of provision. This was particularly important since they do not provide a mainstream service and work in settings that require innovation and flexibility. The confidence that accreditation can bring is particularly important for peer educators who are developing skills in training and advice provision.

When the Communities Scotland funding period ended (and with it the 'compulsion' to be involved) the organisation decided to continue pursuing accreditation as they felt it was a "great idea".

Key to the process has been the involvement of peer educators. They have been involved throughout the process and have been 'drivers' taking the process forward. Having experienced homelessness themselves, and having experienced first-hand the consequences of poor information and advice, the volunteer peer educators have been "passionate" about working to the Standards and achieving accreditation.

The service was asked to be part of the pilot audits for the National Standards in 2004. As there would be no cost to the organisation there was also a financial incentive to get involved at this stage.

2.11.3 Experience of working to the Standards

The first step in working to the National Standards was to send members of the staff team to the training seminars for the Standards.

Internally, they worked through the National Standards manual. They divided up the Standards between team members, who were given the responsibility to find evidence of what they are doing to meet the Standards - or what gaps needed to be addressed. Essentially, this was a process of reviewing relevant policies and documentary evidence.

As a result of this initial work, they put together an action plan to address areas that needed improvement. Through team meetings including both staff and peer educators they reviewed policies and procedures. As a result of these meetings, policies and procedures were developed into straightforward posters which are accessible and easy to understand. They also undertook a review of training needs and ran training sessions for the peer educators.

A key piece of work in adopting the Standards was the development of a reference library for the service. This brought together the services policies and procedures in one place and includes a section on housing law. Procedures were put in place for keeping information resources up to date - materials must be new and relevant. A priority for the organisation was ensuring that materials are accessible, easy to read and without jargon.

The process of adopting the Standards has taken up staff time and resources but has not been a significant burden on the service. The work has been built into staff workplans which are developed quarterly. Discussions on policy and procedures took place in scheduled team meetings. It was suggested by staff that the process might have been more 'paper heavy' if they have been working to higher than Type I. Similarly it was an advantage to be part of a larger organisation with existing core policies and procedures.

However, the process of audit took far longer than expected (a year rather than six months) and was described as 'excruciating'.

2.11.4 Decision to apply for accreditation

The organisation was part of the original pilot. They wanted to be part of something 'new' - and felt that they were meeting the Standards on policies and procedures. The peer educators were keen for the service to go through the audit.

2.11.5 Experience of audit process

The service was audited in March 2005 with the aim of achieving Type I accreditation. At this stage the service applied for accreditation for 17 areas of housing law but was not able to achieve accreditation across all areas. The outcome of the first audit was that accreditation was not awarded but that, subject to certain specified steps being undertaken, the application could be reviewed.

The team at the service did not have a positive experience during the first audit. There were some concerns about communication. Staff were unsure when the auditors were coming and who they would need to speak to. They weren't given an agenda for the day and did not feel they received sufficient feedback from the audit team. Staff and peer educators also felt that they were "interrogated" on the day - and some volunteers were upset by the process. There was a sense that the auditors were looking for fault and there was concern among the volunteers that they would let the team down.

Generally, it was felt that the audit was looking for things to fit in a 'box' and was not sympathetic to less mainstream approaches. Following the audit, staff at the service gave feedback to Homepoint and they are satisfied that their comments were taken on board and fed into the audit process.

At this stage the accreditation application was revised and it was agreed that they should seek to be audited against seven areas of housing law. This was felt to be more appropriate than applying for all areas of housing law.

Key pieces of work that were undertaken following the 2005 audit included: staff completed CD-Rom training on 'housing issues for advisors'; peer educators undertook refresher training; the service developed a new training course and had the course materials validated by Shelter; and staff job descriptions were reviewed. Other work that was undertaken was a review of monitoring / evaluation for workshops (with better recording of the information given out at workshops) and support from Shelter on the management of information resources.

In July 2006, a second audit took place which focused entirely on the remedial steps arising from the initial audit. This found that they met all the requirements that had previously been raised and they were accredited at Type I for five areas of housing law (but it was felt that practice was "insufficiently systematic" to be accredited in two of the areas).

Staff and volunteers at the service felt that the second audit was a more positive and encouraging experience. The auditors seemed more interested in what they were doing and the approaches they were taking. There was also more relaxed contact with the volunteers at the service - auditors met with the peer educators over lunch. They talked through the competencies and asked the staff and peer educators how they would achieve them.

Overall, they felt that the process of audit was a lot of work but was worth going through in order to be accredited.

The organisation provides an innovative service to vulnerable groups of people. Staff and peer educators are committed to the work that they do and there was some apprehension about being audited against the Standards framework.

2.11.6 Impacts / added value of accreditation

Accreditation has had a significant impact on the staff and volunteers at the service. They feel "vindicated" in adopting the approach that they have. These approaches may be perceived as different to mainstream approaches and they feel that accreditation affirms the quality of the work that they are doing. There is a genuine sense of pride that they have achieved accreditation.

The process of accreditation has made the organisation review procedures and present policies and procedures in a more accessible way. Previously it could be difficult to get volunteers to sit down and think about working to procedures when they want to get 'out there' and help people. The process has helped volunteers see the necessity of procedures - these are now being consciously followed.

The process of working towards accreditation has helped to 'gel' the team. It has been an opportunity to show others how strong an organisation it is.

Staff feel that the service to clients has improved as a result of new systems and greater consistency across the service. New procedures to update leaflets and review the resource library mean the information provided to clients is up-to-date and relevant. There is also a greater exchange of information between staff and volunteers at team meetings. They also have a procedure in place for when a team member is absent.

They feel that working towards accreditation has meant that provision is more consistent and the basic standard of advice provided doesn't change depending on the worker.

Management feel that accreditation has changed their relationship with other organisations and that it has brought greater trust and respect. They use the accreditation mark on letterheads and emails - they feel it is a mark of quality and lets others know what they can expect from their organisation. Local partners have sent congratulations following accreditation and they hope that it has instilled greater trust in their organisation among funders.

The process of preparing for audit and re-audit also helped to develop stronger partnership working with Shelter who helped with the review of information resources.

The service also has a strong partnership with a project in Norway which was established to replicate their work - they have shown strong interest in the National Standards and have lobbied the Norwegian Government to develop a similar approach.

2.11.7 Lessons learned

• The badge of accreditation can be particularly meaningful for small voluntary organisations providing services in challenging environments. Where advisors are volunteers (and in this case peer educators) the importance of raising confidence and pride in the organisation should not be underestimated.
• There were tensions between a 'one size fits all' approach to audit and style of service provided. The audit process should be sensitive to what the organisation is trying to achieve - and supportive to volunteers working in the sector.
• Preparation for audit (and particularly for Type I accreditation) need not be an excessive burden on resources. There is scope to build preparation into existing workplans and administration time.
• Smaller organisations may need to be realistic about what accreditation they are seeking. In this case too many areas of law were applied for - there may be scope for more guidance / support at the stage of applying for audit.

2.12 Case Study 12

2.12.1 Introduction

This organisation has been providing housing information and advice since 1996. It does this on behalf of five housing providers operating in the area. The organisation was set up to make it easier for people to access affordable housing.

Between April 2006 and March 2007, about 19,000 people contacted the organisation to obtain information and advice about housing options. The organisation also sign post customers to other agencies when it is unable to provide advice.

The organisation became accredited at level Type I in 2007. All advisers completed the HomePoint CD-Rom training at this level.

2.12.2 Decision to adopt the Standards and undergo audit

The organisation was set up around the same time as the National Standards were being developed. The organisation was keen to develop a service that was recognised for its quality - and the National Standards effectively set out the framework (and the measure) that would lead to a better service.

The decision to undergo the audit and become accredited was strongly underpinned by the impact it could potentially have on funders. Self assessing had never been seen as an alternative.

The costs of the audit were an issue and the agency is apprehensive about the costs associated with the re-accreditation.

2.12.3 Working towards accreditation

The organisation started working towards the Standards in 2000. It started focusing on implementing them in 2006 when auditors had been appointed.

As the organisation participated in one of the initial pilots, it worked alongside HomePoint in adopting the Standards. Implementing the Standards had been felt to be a straightforward process. And the organisation felt confident that it was meeting the Standards when it submitted its self-assessment. The organisation applied for Type I accreditation in all 19 areas of law.

The organisation was not unfamiliar with process of undergoing an audit. They had previously been through the Investors in People accreditation process.

Although the preparation for the audit was manageable, it was labour intensive - especially gathering all the necessary paper work. Many policies and procedures had to be updated and several had to be developed - in particular on keeping information up to date.

The audit visits took place during October and November 2006. The organisation felt confident during the process audit. It had been easier to evidence that policies and procedures were in place - and the outcome reflected this. Few changes were highlighted by the auditors from the process audit.

The Quality of Advice audit was more 'intense' than expected - in particular the adviser competencies. There had been an expectation that the audit would 'focus on what was there - not what wasn't there' as had been the case during the Investors In People audit. It had been difficult to evidence several of the Type I Standards. This was because it did not deal with case files and therefore did not record what information was being given out. And the organisation did not have structures in place to record signposting.

It was noted by the auditors that the information given out by the advisers had not been at the appropriate level - too little detailed information was being given to customers. The auditors also insisted that the agency should keep referral notes. The organisation disputed this, saying that there was a difference in signposting and referral. In the end, the organisation did not have to comply with this requirement - but was disappointed to see that this was still included in the audit report.

Subsequently, the organisation failed the audit process. The auditors, however, agreed that the agency would receive conditional accreditation if the number of areas of law that it sought accreditation for were reduced. On the advice of the auditors, the agency reduced them from nineteen to ten - concentrating on housing options, homelessness and security of tenure.

To receive conditional accreditation had been disappointing for the agency - in particular for staff. Following an audit process evaluation seminar, it became clear that there were several other organisations that had only received conditional accreditation. While the organisation was able to take comfort in this, it raised the question of why so many organisations were being put forward for accreditation, when in reality they might not be ready.

The organisation was awarded conditional accreditation in November 2006. In consultation with HomePoint, it drew up an action plan to work towards full accreditation. It was awarded full accreditation in July 2007.

2.12.4 Impact and added value

Despite the challenges that this organisation faced in receiving full accreditation and the costs that are involved in the audit process, the accreditation process was well worthwhile. And it has already seen several benefits from adopting the Standards.

Staff have benefitted in a number of ways. They feel:

• more confident about the advice they are giving out and have a better understanding of how sound advice can make a difference;
• that they are part of 'a worth while organisation';
• a sense of achievement through team work and more committed to providing the best housing advice possible.

It was also noted that staff had become more committed and enthusiastic about training because they could see the value in it.

The agency was also confident that their customers had benefitted from accreditation. The quality of advice is much better - in particular in giving out proactive information and advice.

• The process of gathering information from customers has become much more structured. This has resulted in staff making more in depth investigations about the issues behind housing needs.
• Staff started making informal referrals by calling other agencies to let them know that customers have been signposted to them.
• There is also a greater awareness amongst staff about external agencies and what they do. This means that customers are confidently being sign-posted to agencies - 'rather than just giving them a leaflet'.

The organisation has emphasised the important link between quality assurance and funding. Being dependent upon grants means that this is even more important. The agency is very hopeful that accreditation will make a real difference to the long-term sustainability of the agency.

One current funder of the organisation said that it is vital that any organisation giving out information and advice is quality assured. It was also seen to be important that there was a level of consistency between information and advice providers - and accreditation was a first step towards a common service level.

The organisation was unable to point towards any evidence that might support these impacts because the service had undergone considerable change since the accreditation process. This made it difficult to make a direct comparison. Customers are asked for feedback during interviews and when completing customer profiles. The organisation also asks for feedback on its website. The feedback it has received from these has been positive.

The organisation was keen to point out that unless they had undergone the audit, it would not have been able to implement the Standards. This was also evident in that the agency thought it had adopted them when it applied for audit - and yet it failed the Quality of Advice audit. Instead, the organisation attributes the implementation of the Standards to the audit process itself. The organisation was unable to see the links between the Standards and the information and advice it was providing. Looking at the Standards in isolation had made less sense than the overall changes it made to the way it worked once the Standards had been implemented.

This, for example, manifested itself in the development of an interview checklist. During the audit, a member of staff realised that in order to keep records of signposting, they should be guided by a checklist during interviews. This list means that they are able to gather information about housing situations and clearly show what agencies they are signposting customers to.

Accreditation was also seen as a way of being able to keep the same level of standards that was achieved during the accreditation process. The need to re- accredit means that this organisation will keep its processes and procedures up to date and will continue to focus on delivering quality of information and advice. At the same time, the organisation felt that their processes and procedures were now so up to date that this would be a very straightforward, less time consuming exercise.

2.12.5 Lessons learned

• Apply the Standards to every day work. Standards cannot be effective if the people who are supposed to meet them don't understand why they are important. Explaining to staff how the Standards relate to their everyday work is therefore crucial. Make sure staff get involved in the implementation of the Standards from the very beginning. This will show them how they should be applied. It took a while before this agency could persuade its staff to see the benefits that accreditation could have on them. Staff now value the Standards and recognise that they make a difference.

• Accreditation can make the difference. Being able to implement the Standards can be dependent on the process. This agency made no distinction between working towards the Standards and working towards accreditation. Although it had started working towards the Standards, real progress was only made when it had applied for accreditation. More importantly, the agency had deemed that it had implemented the Standards before the audit visits had taken place. It was not until the auditors came in that this agency thoroughly understood how the Standards worked - and how to apply them.

• Accreditation will get easier. There can be many changes made when adopting the Standards and during the audit. The process can be time consuming, staff resource intense and maybe even stressful. But the case study shows that the sometimes 'onerous' tasks involving the development of new policies and procedures and gathering information for the auditors - are only required to be done once. This organisation now has structures in place so that they can regularly review and update policies and procedures - which should mean that re-accreditation should be a more straightforward process.

« Previous | Contents | Next »