Main Findings

• The survey found that 32% of the general population in Argyll & Bute had experienced a justiciable problem between 1998 and 2003.
• People with a justiciable problem in Argyll & Bute were more likely to be living in rented accommodation, in receipt of state benefits, to have children at home or to have a physical or mental impairment than people without a justiciable problem.
• Neighbourhood disputes, in the form of anti-social behaviour, were reported most frequently (13%), followed by problems with housing (10%), faulty goods (6%) and benefits (6%). The vast majority of respondents (76%) said they had experienced only a single problem in the previous 5 years.
• 66% of people who reported a justiciable problem in Argyll & Bute sought advice from a third party. People who did seek advice were most likely to seek help for housing problems or injury due to an accident, divorce or separation and for medical negligence. They were least likely to seek advice for faulty goods and services and benefit problems.
• People were most likely to approach the local council for advice, followed by solicitors and police. However, the nature of the problem had an impact on the type of agency approached for advice. People with housing problems and neighbour problems were more likely to contact the local council whereas people with problems relating to divorce or separation were more likely to approach solicitors.
• Most people who approached the police or solicitors for advice indicated that they were successful in obtaining the advice they were looking for (59% and 72% respectively). In contrast, only 42% of people who approached the council said they were successful in eliciting helpful advice.
• A proxy model was developed to estimate the relative prevalence of justiciable problems in Argyll & Bute compared with 3 other areas. According to this model, Argyll & Bute recorded the highest prevalence for housing problems, benefit problems and problems associated with divorce and separation and the lowest prevalence for neighbourhood disputes.

Introduction

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

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

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

Methods

A community survey was administered to a random sample of the population in Argyll & Bute. To ensure a sufficient sample size was obtained, a target sample of 400 people with at least one legal problem over a 5 year period was achieved. In total, 1,273 people in were surveyed. The survey captures 13 categories of ‘justiciable problem’ ranging from immigration to housing problems, family problems to money and benefit problems. The survey also describes whether people sought help or advice for their problems and whether people were satisfied with the help they received. The questionnaire took 10 minutes to complete.

A proxy model was also developed using the survey data to estimate the nature and level of legal problems in the Argyll & Bute area. The key findings were subsequently discussed in a group with key stakeholders. Discussions focused on whether the data generated by these methods would be helpful in future planning and included representatives from statutory, voluntary and private sector provider organisations.

Prevalence of legal problems in Argyll & Bute

Results showed that 32% of people surveyed in Argyll & Bute reported at least one justiciable problem over a 5 year period between 1998 and 2003.

Neighbourhood disputes in the form of anti-social behaviour emerged as the most common problem in Argyll & Bute (reported by 13% of people interviewed). However, prevalence rates were found to be higher among particular sectors of the local population. Neighbourhood disputes were most prevalent among lower income households, the under 55’s, those who were renting accommodation, those in receipt of housing benefit or income support, females and those who had a physical or mental impairment.

The second most prevalent problem was housing (10%) followed by problems to be with faulty goods or services (6%) and benefits (6%).

Most people (76%) only reported a single problem over the 5 year period. For those with more than one problem, neighbourhood disputes, housing and employment problems tended to cluster together.

Advice seeking behaviour

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

66% of people interviewed in Argyll & Bute said they had sought help for their problems. The main reasons given for not seeking help were that ‘the problem was already resolved’ and ‘I decided not to bother’.

What people did about their problems seemed to be influenced by the type of problem experienced. Overall, advice was most likely to be sought for unfair treatment by the police, immigration, housing, divorce/separation and children, injury due to an accident and medical negligence. People were least likely to seek advice for problems relating to faulty goods or benefit problems.

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

• To some extent, it appears the nature of the problem itself also had an impact on the type of agency approached for advice. 76% of people with relationship problems had sought advice from a solicitor whereas people who experienced housing, benefit or discrimination problems were more likely to seek help from the local council.
• Success in obtaining advice

The local council were perceived to be the least helpful agency in terms of obtaining the type of advice people were looking for. 42% of people approaching their local council for advice said they were successful whereas perceived success rates were considerably more favourable for Citizens Advice Bureaux, the police and for solicitors.

Mapping need in Argyll & Bute using proxy-based models

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

The CLS models showed that Argyll & Bute had the third highest proxy score for all problem types. Within Argyll & Bute, employment problems were found to be particularly high in Mull, Oban North, Oban Central and Islay North. Campbeltown Central, Bute Central, Milton and Islay South were found to have the highest level of need associated with housing problems. For debt problems, the wards with the highest levels of need were Campbeltown Central, Bute Central, Milton and Islay South. Finally, for welfare benefits problems, the wards with the highest levels of need were shown to be Campbeltown Central, Bute Central, Bute North and Milton.

Although scores for the whole of Argyll & Bute were able to be constructed and mapped at ward level, there were several problems with this model. First, it was not possible to replicate the models exactly since some of the equivalent indicators were not available for Argyll & Bute. Second, there was no way of assessing the relative levels of need arising from different sources, e.g. employment need relative to welfare need because they are measured on different scales. Third, the conceptual framework for the model is based on existing categories of social welfare law rather than empirically drawn from the patterns of need itself. To rectify these difficulties, survey data relating to prevalence and demographics collected by mruk were used to develop a new empirically-based proxy measure. The new model found that Argyll & Bute had the smallest percentage of neighbourhood disputes, but the highest number of problems relating to housing, benefit problems and problems relating to divorce and separation.

The proxy model could also identify particular postcode districts in Argyll & Bute which appeared to elicit particularly high or particularly low levels of problem reporting above and beyond the factors included in the model. In Argyll & Bute, postcodes PA27 and PA75 were found to elicit particularly high levels of problem reporting. Conversely, a low level of problem reporting was found in postcode PA34. Elucidation of these findings requires further local knowledge — this was the role of the pilot partnership.

Group discussions

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

Providers recognised the value of utilising research evidence in planning. In particular, they were reassured that the sampling methods used in the study captured an appropriate representation of rural and remote populations as well as urban settlements. However, group discussions revealed that some providers felt that prevalence levels for some problems, particularly debt and benefits seemed lower than they expected. This view was particularly evident among providers who supply advice on these specific areas.

Participants suggested that some problems may be under-reported, especially when they perceive that they are at fault as opposed to the other party. Although some participants raised concerns about the reliability of the indicators used in the CLS proxy models, participants felt that both methods were potentially valuable and had enhanced participants’ understanding of need in Argyll & Bute. Overall, many providers felt that both methods would be very useful in the future planning exercise.

Footnote

1. A justiciable problem is defined as a problem which raised a legal issue, whether or not it was recognised as legal by the respondent, and whether or not any action taken by the respondent involved any part of the civil justice system. These categories are based on pre-defined categories of law.