Response from the Ministry of Justice
to follow-up Questions from the Committee following the evidence
session on the former Department for Constitutional Affairs Departmental
Annual Report 2006-07 on 17 July
1. The Pre-Budget Report 2006 announced the
Department's Comprehensive Spending Review 2007 settlement with
an annual 3.5% reduction in the DCA budget
a) Which areas of the MoJ will receive less
resources?
b) How will they maintain service delivery
levels despite a reduction in resources?
This settlement applies to the ex-DCA parts
of the Ministry, all of whom will need to deliver efficiency savings.
We will maintain service delivery by ensuring
that all the savings we make are efficiencies rather than cuts.
We have received some modernisation funding as part of our settlement
and this will be used for reforms that will lead to a more efficient
department.
Examples of this include:
— The "Way Ahead" reform
programme, which will control legal aid spend while at the same
time ensuring access to legal help is not restricted.
— The Tribunals Service restructuring
programme, which will rationalise their estate and introduce a
new business model for hearings and corporate services.
— HMCS's change programme which includes
a variety of projects which will increase the effectiveness and
efficiency of the courts including Criminal Justice: Speedy, Simple,
Summary, Community Justice, and improvements to case management
systems in criminal and civil jurisdictions.
2. The committee recently requested a copy
of the five year financial plans referred to on page 11 of the
DCA Annual Report. These were not referred to the Committee yet.
Could these be provided to the committee?
In the oral evidence session on 17 July, Barbara
Moorhouse stated that we will not be able to produce a definitive
financial plan until the final CSR settlement is announced. When
this process is completed (and we expect it to take a few months),
we will be happy to share the plans with the committee.
3. When the Committee asked about how the
MoJ ensured to maintain quality of service levels given that the
number of acts of assistance provided by the Legal Services Commission
has increased by over 30% in two years on a "largely flat"
budget, the Committee was told that you would share with it the
results of legal aid user surveys on customer satisfaction. Could
you please send these to the Committee?
In responding to the Committee's questions on
quality, reference was made to the survey carried out by Legal
Services Research Centre (LSRC), on behalf of MoJ/LSC, on the
problems experienced by the population and the type of assistance
received. This is a survey of the general population conducted
by the Legal LSRC on problems experienced and advice provided
rather than being a specific "legal aid user survey".
Professor Pascoe Pleasence (Head of LSRC) leads
the research into problems experienced by the population, which
is published in the book Causes of Action: Civil Law and Social
Justice. The research on which Causes of Action is based is updated
on a quarterly basis, and this will in due course lead to an updated
edition of Causes of Action. In the meantime, Professor Pleasence
reports on the updates to the PSA 5 Programme Board, because PSA
5 Target 1 (to increase the proportion of justiciable problems
in respect of which people receive suitable advice and assistance)
is measured by the results of the LSRC survey.
The latest report on advice provision prepared
for the PSA 5 Programme Board is attached at Annex A. This provides
an overview of the position in terms of achieving the advice provision
target but only provides a limited overview of all the research
carried out. Professor Pleasence has therefore offered to supply
copies of the book Causes of Action to the committee and to conduct
a seminar with members should they wish to learn more about the
research in this area. I would be happy to arrange this for the
Committee as required.
The LSC also gathers other evidence of quality
that the Committee may find helpful. For example, the initial
results of Peer Review, which began in 2005, show that the quality
of firms is improving. Whereas 33% of firms achieved a Category
1 or Category 2 rating in 2005, this increased to 41% in 2006.
The full analysis of Peer Review results can be found at Annex
B. From December 2005 onwards, LSC regional offices have also
conducted "quality profiles' of individual firms. These are
based on a number of criteria, including length and mix of cases,
case outcomes and contract compliance, which are looked at against
an average for that kind of work. The percentages of providers
falling into low-risk and high-risk categories under the LSC's
"Quality profiles" stayed static between December 2005
and July 2007. Whilst neither of these are direct measures of
quality from the client's perspective, they do offer a useful
proxy, and certainly indicate that quality does not seem to have
declined in a period in which the numbers of acts of assistance
have dramatically increased.
In addition, where the LSC has carried out customer
satisfaction surveys (April and July 2006), for its telephone
advice service CLS Direct. The July 2006 results show that 95%
of users were "quite" or "very" satisfied
with the service (Annex C). Again, this is a positive piece of
evidence.
The Government and the LSC are committed to
ensuring that quality is maintained or improved as a result of
legal aid reform. Over the past year, the LSC has run workshops
for more than 1,000 legal aid firms and agencies to prepare them
for peer review and share best practice from other providers on
improving quality. In addition they have produced a series of
guides for improving performance across crime and civil areas—available
at http://www.legalservices.gov.uk/criminal/contracting/improving—quality.asp.
The LSC will also shortly be consulting upon proposals for the
introduction of best value tendering for criminal defence work.
The consultation will cover the quality requirements for entry
in the tendering process and plans for on-going contract management.
4. The committee had requested to receive,
on a confidential basis, the Office of Government Commerce quarterly
efficiency report. The MoJ provided tables, but the Committee
found these to be insufficient compared to the tables provided
to select committees by other Government Departments. In particular,
neither the profile of planned delivery across the Spending Review
period nor the data classification table was included. An example
of the full table the Committee was expected to see can be found
enclosed to this letter. Could you provide the Committee with
the full OGC tables as requested?
a) Does the MoJ not use all four tables in
the sample OGC report?
b) Why was the Committee not provided with
exactly these tables and breakdowns (especially the full forecast
breakdown) initially?
We enclose the tables as requested (Annexes
D[1],
E and F [not printed]). That they were not supplied earlier
was due to a misunderstanding of the requirement between Committee
Clerks and our Finance Directorate. We were asked for our OGC
efficiency reports for March and December 2006 and therefore supplied
the actuals we had reported to OGC for these two periods.
We use the data classification table, which
is completed internally and sent to OGC. We do not have a table
for March 2006 because we had not yet started to classify our
data by the OGC specifications at this time.
The other three tables are created by OGC using
the data we report quarterly (headcount reductions, financial
savings and relocations) to them. This data comes from our internal
tracking processes. This is the same process followed by all Government
Departments for reporting efficiency gains.
Alex Allen, Permanent Secretary
October 2007
Annex A
UPDATE ON SR2004 PSA5 TARGET MEASURE: PROVISIONAL
FULL-YEAR 2006 FIGURES
LEGAL SERVICES RESEARCH CENTRE, FEBRUARY
2007
INTRODUCTION
Progress against Target 1 of SR2004 PSA5 is
measured using data from the 2004 and continuous English and Welsh
Civil and Social Justice Survey (CSJS). The continuous survey
commenced in January 2006. The survey is designed and managed
by the Legal Services Research Centre. Fieldwork for both the
2004 and continuous survey has and continues to be conducted by
BMRB Social Research.
To date, BMRB Social Research has provided the
Legal Services Research Centre with data from 3,088 face-to-face
interviews. This represents the full-year 2006 sample. The final
continuous survey sample size is expected to be around 10,000
respondents. The 2006 sample compares to a 2004 survey sample
of 5,011 respondents.
The 2006 figures set out below are provisional.
When 2006 data coding has been completed, final 2006 figures will
be provided to the Department. The final figures will be only
slightly different from those provided below. The figures provided
below therefore represent a clear indication of the current situation
in respect of Target 1 of SR2004 PSA5.
The following two sections of this document
set out the baseline and 2006 figures for Target 1 of SR2004 PSA5
and some context to the figures, including an indication of changes
since 2004 in problem incidence and absolute levels of advice.
TARGET 1 OF
SR2004 PSA5
At baseline (2004 CSJS) the figure for Target
1 of SR2004 PSA5 was 47.5%[2]
(45.6 to 49.4 at 95% confidence). The full-year 2006 provisional
figure is 44.4%[3]
(42.2 to 46.7 at 95 per cent confidence). Using a simple chi-squared
test, this represents a significant decrease. The change presents
the Department with a significant challenge in meeting Target
1 by April 2008.
THE CONTEXT
OF TARGET
1 OF SR2004 PSA5
As was highlighted in the 2006 Q2 "Update
on Findings from the Civil and Social Justice Survey" (attached
as Appendix 1), the change in the proportional advice target figure
described by Target 1 of SR2004 PSA5 appears to be occurring against
a backdrop of increased problem experience. The 2001 and 2004
Civil and Social Justice Surveys indicated that 36% and 33%, respectively,
of population experienced one or more problems in the preceding
three-and-a-half years. The decrease was significant. The full-year
2006 survey data indicates that incidence now stands at 36%. This
represents a significant increase in incidence. While the sample
size is still building, and is still not yet fully representative
of the country, the increase in incidence is consistent with some
other indicators of problem experience within the civil justice
field. For example, Judicial Statistics reports claims issued
in the County Courts to have dropped between 2001 and 2003, and
to have risen considerably in 2005 (by 17%). Mortgage possession
cases rose by 53% between 2004 and 2005. Also, the Legal Services
Commission is now seeing a substantial increase in the number
of case starts, although targeting of resources, new management
practices and developments in methods of service delivery have
contributed to this.
Important in the context of the Target 1 figure
is the additional full-year 2006 finding that absolute levels
of advice have increased since 2004. Again, this is consistent
with recent reported increases in advice provision. On the basis
of Q2 data we reported that the absolute level of reported problems
about which advice was obtained (in SR2002 PSA6 terms) had increased,
though not significantly, between 2004 and 2006, from 104[4]
to 109 per 1000. Full-year 2006 data indicates that the level
now stands at 110 per 1000[5].
However, there has been virtually no change whatsoever in the
SR2002 PSA6 figure, when compared to the 2001 baseline, also 110
per 1000.[6]
To gain a better picture of change in the ability
of the civil justice system to provide for people's "justiciable"
problems over time, it is necessary to look at both changes in
incidence and use of advice services. To this end it is possible
to combine both forms of measure currently used for PSA purposes
(SR2002 PSA6 and SR2004 PSA5). The best way to do this is to multiply
the mean number of problems experienced by each person in the
population by the proportion of problems for which advice is obtained.
Using this combined measure provides figures of 0.217 for 2001,
0.257 for 2004. We reported a figure of 0.278 for Q2 of 2006.
Full-year 2006 data indicates that the figure now stands at 0.283.
Thus, there has been a generally improving picture of advice provision
over five years. The change over time is significant.
Appendix 1
UPDATE ON FINDINGS FROM THE CIVIL AND SOCIAL
JUSTICE SURVEY AND THE SR2000/2002 PSA6 AND SR2004 PSA5 TARGETS
INCIDENCE OF
CIVIL JUSTICE
PROBLEMS
Findings from the English and Welsh Civil and
Social Justice Surveys (CSJS) (2001, 2004 and Q1/Q2 2006), and
the earlier English Paths to Justice survey, all indicate that
the incidence of civil justice problems is not static, but linked
to broad health, social and economic factors. The English Paths
to Justice survey indicated that, between 1992 and 1998, around
40 per cent of the population experienced one or more civil justice
problem. Problems were not randomly distributed across the population.
They were suggested to be more prevalent among younger population
groups. However, little demographic information was collected
for all survey respondents, so other patterns could not be investigated.
The 2001 and 2004 Civil and Social Justice Surveys indicated that
36% and 33%, respectively, of population experienced one or more
problems in the preceding three-and-a-half years. The decrease
was significant (X 21 = 9.25, p < 0.01) and the sample size
was well powered to identify such a difference (ß = 0.11,
where ß is the probability of a Type II error). Logistic
regression analysis of 2001 and 2004 indicated that some of the
difference in incidence was attributable to "differences
in the social and demographic profiles of the 2001 and 2004 samples"
(Pleasence 2006). The decrease was in line with decreases in crime
victimisation reported though the British Crime Survey and with
the drop in matter starts being reported by the Legal Services
Commission. Modelling of 2001 and 2004 data indicated that strong
predictors of incidence included levels of long-term ill-health
and disability, lone parenthood and unemployment. However, not
all of the difference between the reported rates of incidence
in 2001 and 2004 could be attributed to changes in these social
characteristics. It has been hypothesised that the difference
may also be attributable to more general changes in social and
economic circumstances. The 2004 survey also found a very strong
link between the incidence of civil justice problems and of crime
victimisation. The first two quarters of 2006 data from the continuous
CSJS, while not representative of the population and amounting
to fewer than 1,500 respondents, suggest that incidence may have
increased from a low-point in 2004. The incidence rate from the
continuous survey currently stands at 37%, and the average number
of problems per person among the general population has increased
from 0.54 in 2004 to 0.64 in 2006. It should be noted that, as
the 2001, 2004 and continuous surveys are backwards looking, over
a number of years, so changes on the ground can take a while to
feed through into the figures. Nevertheless, incidence does now
seem to be increasing from a low point in the run up to 2004.
SENSITIVITY OF
SR2000 PSA6, 2002 PSA6 AND 2004
PSA 5 TARGET MEASURES
TO CHANGES
IN INCIDENCE
The SR2000 and SR2002 PSA6 targets concerning
overall advice provision were both couched in absolute terms,
while the SR2004 PSA5 target is couched in proportionate terms.
Both forms of measure are susceptible to changes in incidence.
However, the susceptibility manifests differently for each form.
For the absolute form of measure, the target is jeopardised by
a decrease in problem incidence—as an increase in the proportion
of people obtaining advice is required just to compensate for
the decrease. For the proportionate form, the target is jeopardised
by an increase in problem incidence—as levels of absolute
service delivery need to increase just to maintain the proportion
of people who obtain advice. Although incidence can potentially
be influenced by advice provision (eg through prevention of problem
cascades), key influences on global problem incidence are outside
of the control of the DCA.
LEVEL OF
ADVICE PROVISION
REPORTED THROUGH
2001, 2004 AND Q1/Q2 2006 SURVEY
DATA
The drop in reported incidence between the 2001
and 2004 surveys contributed to the substantial increase in the
proportion of problems reported in 2004 for which advice had been
obtained (in SR2000/2 PSA6 terms, from 32% to 36%; in SR2004 PSA5
terms, from 33% to 48%). The scale of increase was not, though,
sufficient to counteract the impact of reduced incidence. Thus,
the PSA6 target measure decreased from 110 to 104 problems where
advice was obtained per 1,000 of the population. Evidence from
2006 Q1/Q2 of the continuous survey points to the possibility
that the situation may now be changing again. As detailed above,
incidence of problems is currently 37%. The absolute level of
reported problems about which advice was obtained (in SR2002 PSA6
terms) has increased, though not significantly, between 2004 and
2006, from 104 to 109 per 1000. However, the proportion of people
with problems obtaining suitable advice has fallen, from over
47% to under 44%. Again, this change is not significant and, as
noted above, the 2006 sample is not yet representative.
A BETTER PICTURE
OF CHANGE
To gain a better picture of change it is necessary
to look at both changes in incidence and use of advice services.
To this end it is possible to combine both forms of measure currently
used for PSA purposes (SR2002 PSA6 and SR2004 PSA5). The best
way to do this is to multiply the mean number of problems experienced
by each person in the population by the proportion of problems
for which advice is obtained. Using this combined measure provides
figures of 0.217 for 2001, 0.257 for 2004 and 0.284 for 2006.
This represents a generally improving picture of advice provision
over 5 years. The change over time is significant.
Annex B
CONFIRMED RATINGS ON VALID PEER REVIEWS
| Key to Ratings: |
| |
| 1 = Excellence | 3 = Threshold Competence
| 5 = Failure in Performance |
| 2 = Competence Plus | 4 = Below Competence
| |
| |
|
Summary Table
Since 01/04/2005 to date (03/08/2007)
| Ratings | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | 1
| 2 | 3
| 4 | 5
|
| Category | Total No of
Peer Reviews
Completed
| No | % | No
| % | No | %
| No | % | No
| % |
Civil | 439 | 23
| 5% | 135 | 31%
| 218 | 50% | 62
| 14% | 1 | 1% |
| Crime | 466 | 11
| 2% | 238 | 51%
| 175 | 38% | 42
| 9% | 0 | 0% |
| Total | 905 |
34 | 4% | 373
| 41% | 393 |
43% | 104 | 11%
| 1 | 0% |
| |
| | | |
| | | |
| |
Table 1
Between 01/04/2005 and 31/03/2006
| Ratings | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | 1
| 2 | 3
| 4 | 5
|
| Category | Total Number
of Valid Peer
Review
| No | % | No
| % | No | %
| No | % | No
| % |
Civil | 260 | 13
| 5% | 73 | 28%
| 136 | 52% | 37
| 14% | 1 | 1% |
| Crime | 92 | 1
| 1% | 39 | 42%
| 43 | 47% | 9 |
10% | 0 | 0% |
| Total | 352 |
14 | 4% | 112
| 32% | 179 |
51% | 46 | 13%
| 1 | 0% |
| |
| | | |
| | | |
| |
Table 2
Between 01/04/2006 and 31/03/2007
| Ratings | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | 1
| 2 | 3
| 4 | 5
|
| Category | Total Number
of Valid Peer
Review
| No | % | No
| % | No | %
| No | % | No
| % |
Civil | 158 | 10
| 6% | 55 | 35%
| 73 | 46% | 20
| 13% | 0 | 0% |
| Crime | 320 | 9
| 3% | 162 | 51%
| 122 | 38% | 27
| 8% | 0 | 0% |
| Total | 478 |
19 | 4% | 217
| 45% | 195 |
41% | 47 | 10%
| 0 | 0% |
| |
| | | |
| | | |
| |
Table 1 presents the confirmed ratings of valid peer reviews
undertaken in 2005-06, while Table 2 presents the confirmed ratings
of valid peer reviews undertaken in 2006-07.
The table shows that the percentage of providers reviewed
who have been awarded a rating of Excellence (1) has remained
steady at 4%. However, the percentage of providers reviewed who
have achieved a rating of Competence Plus (2) has increased from
32% in 2005-06 to 45% in 2006-07.This has lead to a decrease in
the providers who have been rated as Threshold Competence (3)
from 51% to 41% as more providers have achieved a higher rating.
There has also been a slight decrease in the percentage of providers
being rated as Below Competence (4) with only 10% of providers
been given this rating in 2006-07.
These results indicate a general improvement in the quality
of advice and work of the providers reviewed, particularly in
relation to the number of providers whose work is rated as Competence
Plus (2).
Annex C
COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICE DIRECT—TELEPHONE ADVICE
CLIENT SATISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE JULY 2006
INTRODUCTION
The Community Legal Service Direct National Telephone Service
carries out a client feedback survey during each quarter to look
at the client experience of using the service and to help identify
areas for improvement. The survey is sent to the service's advice
contractors to pass on to recent clients, selected at random.
The completed questionnaires are then sent to the Legal Services
Commission for collation and analysis.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The latest National Telephone Service client feedback survey
again shows very positive results. However, the number and proportion
of respondents has dropped slightly since the last two surveys.
An improvement to the quality of the service is represented
in this report, with few negative responses. 95% of respondents
said their expectations were "Very satisfied" or "Quite
satisfied" by the service they received. More than 98% of
respondents said they were likely, certain to or had already recommended
the service to someone else, and advisers were rated highly on
their professionalism, courtesy, knowledge, and ability to help
identify a solution to the client's problem.
NUMBER OF
RETURNS
We received a good response to the questionnaire; with 179
forms (17.5%) forms being returned in total but this has dropped
since that the last survey (March—20.2%). The accepted average
rate of return for a survey of this nature is approximately 10%.
The number of returns varied amongst the contractors, with the
highest number being received by DAWN (29 responses). The average
number of returns per CLS Direct contractor was 14.9 (14.6 March,
13.6 Oct/Nov). However, we did not receive any returns from Morgan's.
They have notified CLS Direct that they did not receive any questionnaires
but this was too late in order to send out more questionnaires
to be incorporated into this evaluation.
We also received returns from the CLP, which offers housing
advice to travellers. These figures have been analysed separately
because of the different questions asked in the Client Satisfaction
Questionnaire. We received six completed questionnaires ((0.6%).
This has improved since March's questionnaire when we received
one less.
HEADLINE RESULTS
How useful is the service?
The outcome of the Client Satisfaction Survey, once again,
was overwhelmingly positive, with 95% of clients reporting that
their expectations were either "Very satisfied" or "Quite
satisfied" by the service (March—93%). 2% (three clients)
said they were very dissatisfied, (March—3% (six clients)).
One client was very dissatisfied because the client had forgot
to post the relevant form when the client was away. 100% of CLP's
clients said they were either "Very satisfied" or "Quite
satisfied" (March—100%).
|
| Element of the Service | Percentage of Users who
found the facility Very Useful
or Useful (%) July 2006
| Percentage of Users who
found the facility Very Useful
or Useful (%) March 06
|
|
| Directory Line | 83.1 | 81.4
|
| Leaflet Line | 70.4 | 62.1
|
| Adviser Service | 86.2 |
88.4 |
|
| |
|
The results in the table above were encouraging to see as
the Directory line and Leaflet line results have improved since
March's survey. A great deal of work has been done to improve
the service offered by the Directory Line. Improving the information
held in the Directory is one of Community Legal Service Direct's
priorities for 2006-07 and work is ongoing to achieve this. Satisfaction
with the Leaflet Line increased quite significantly. Although
the Adviser service satisfaction decreased slightly, new advisers
have been recruited for the introduction of the operator service
so satisfaction levels will be monitored to assess the quality.
Perhaps the most positive outcome of all was the fact that
an increased proportion of clients (90%) said that they had either
"Already" recommended CLS Direct to someone else or
were "Certain to" (March—83%). A further 8% were
"Likely to" (March—15%). No clients said that
they were certain not to recommend the service (March—three
clients (1%)). 83% of CLP's client's said they either "Already"
recommended CLS Direct to someone else or were "Certain to"
(March—100%).
Negative responses
It is a worrying when any users of the service report that
they were dissatisfied with the service they received or say their
problems were made worse as a result of their contacting CLS Direct.
We investigate any negative responses closely.
In this survey, No clients said the advice had worsened their
problem (March—1%, two Clients).
No clients said that they were certain not to recommend the
service to anyone else (March—1%).
Three clients (1.7%) said that their expectations were very
unsatisfied by the service (March 3%). One housing client mentioned
that their expectations to the service was very dissatisfied because
the client was away and forgot to post the relevant form so became
out of pocket. The other dissatisfied client seeking welfare benefits
advise mentioned that they contacted the adviser who requested
that they fill out lots of forms and passed the client to different
people, which could not help.
The telephone team will review all of the expressions of
dissatisfaction and seek further details from the relevant contractors.
How long do people have to wait to speak to an adviser?
89% of callers said that the queue time was "acceptable"
or "very acceptable" (March 85%); only 1% said it was
"unacceptable" (March 3%). No one said the queuing time
was "completely unacceptable".
Of the two responses that said that the queuing time was
"unacceptable", Debt and Education was the categories
of law that the clients were calling for advise on.
What outcomes were achieved for clients?
Over 96% of users stated that CLS Direct either did work
that helped solve their problem or provided them with information
that enabled them to solve their problem themselves (March 06—89%,
Oct/Nov 05—93%).
Overall, 75% of users said the adviser they spoke to was
able to see the case through to a conclusion (compared to March
06—79% and Oct/Nov 05—83%). The reasons why cases
were not concluded seem to be the expected ones, having to do
with clients whose problems did not fall within CLS Direct areas
of law, or who needed face to face advice. Examples of comments
include:
— "Advice given for me to write or contact
Horsham CAB but they couldn't help".
— "Due to advice only for bankruptcy—No
option given".
— "I was only ringing for advice on how best
to deal with my problem myself".
— "Was unable to take on the legal case which
was a great pity as I felt very confident with the advisor and
would have liked to have left it in their hands".
Referrals
Where a CLS Direct adviser is not able to see a case through
to its conclusion, they will endeavour to make a referral to someone
who can. 75% of clients said the adviser had seen their case through
to a conclusion, with 25% saying this had not been possible. 48
of clients answered the follow-up question regarding referral;
of those, 52% (25 individuals) said a referral had been made to
another organisation that could help and 70% of these referred
users stated that the referral was very or quite successful.
We added a new question to discover why some referral organisation
could not help. Responses from clients were:
— Too far away to visit to assist re. Letter writing
etc.
— They could see no way around the problem.
— I felt they weren't as knowledgeable or professional.
How are CLS Direct callers finding out about the service?
A range of publicity work has been done to inform people
about Community Legal Service Direct. We collect data about how
callers find out about the service through the monthly report
forms submitted by advice contractors, but the customer feedback
survey provides an opportunity to expand upon this information.
|
| How did you find out about the service?
| Percentage (%)—
July 2006
| Percentage (%)—
March 2006
|
|
| CAB | 30 | 36
|
| Yellow Pages | 16 | 19
|
| Family member/Friend | 14 |
4 |
| Solicitor | 10 | 11
|
| Internet | 6 | 4
|
| Other | 24 | 26
|
|
| |
|
These figures indicate that the main routes by which people
find out about the service are those, which give them reassurance,
such as CAB.
| | |
|
| How did you find out about the service?
|
Category of law | Percentage (%)—
July 2006
| Percentage (%)—
March 2006
|
| | |
|
| CAB | Employment | 30
| 42 |
| Debt | 38
| 37 |
| Housing | 25
| 31 |
| Education | 8
| 15 |
| Welfare Benefits | 24
| 37 |
| | |
|
| |
| |
Whilst the survey question separately identifies a number
of key marketing areas for CLS Direct, 24% of respondents said
that they had heard about the service from a source other than
the main five (March 24%). Clients are then invited to give details.
Examples from the latest survey include:
Client comments—How did you find out about the Community
Legal Service Direct telephone service?
"Islington Peoples Rights"
Does a client's experience vary between categories of law?
The greatest percentage of returns came from Debt clients
(with 6.7%) whilst the least responses came from those callers
receiving Education advice (1.2%). This corresponds with overall
demand for the service.
The percentages of clients who stated that the adviser could
not help with their problem straight away in the categories of
Debt, Welfare Benefits and Education was 13%, 24% and 25% respectively.
Reference to the comments made in the second part of the
question, "If the adviser could NOT deal with your problem
straight away please give details", shows that the main reasons
for delay are that the advisers had to research a complex area
of law in more detail but advisers phoned the client back; or
that the caller had to provide additional documentation for the
adviser to work from.
Clients were most likely to say that the advice line was
unable to take on their case and bring it to a conclusion in the
categories of Employment (28%), Housing (45%) and Education (27%)
compared to March's results of Housing (32%) and Welfare Benefits
(27%); issues of financial eligibility and the fact that CLS Direct
cannot fund for cases before courts or tribunals in these categories
are likely factors.
CLIENT COMMENTS
The survey provides a valuable opportunity to obtain some
detailed feedback from clients in their own words, giving a clear
indication of the things they did and did not like about the service,
and whether it met their expectations. A range of examples is
given below:
"I and my partner would not know where to have turned
to if it wasn't for the help and understanding we have received
from this service. We would like to thank them very much; you
are all very considerate and do a wonderful job. Best regards
Audrey and Pete."
"I found the service very helpful. The advisor gave clear
and helpful advice."
"Although my case has not been concluded for some time,
I have absolute faith and trust in your advisors ability, tact,
confidence and above all, their commitment and compassion. Were
it not for their assurances and their dedication, which is already
showing positive results, the utter helplessness, shame, loss
of self-respect and confidence, would have surely killed me. God
bless you all."
"Your service, especially my advisor, offered invaluable
help and guidance at a time when I was in a very difficult situation.
I would certainly recommend your services."
"I found the initial and subsequent advisor knowledgeable
and professional. This was the first time that CLS was consulted.
The overall handling of the matter was excellent which is more
than I can say about previous dealings with solicitors."
CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS
The responses received during the course of this survey were
once again overwhelmingly positive about the National Telephone
Service and the help and advice that it provides. CLS Direct would
appear to be fulfilling a very useful purpose within the Advice
sector, which is reflected in the continuing rise in demand for
the service each month.
The NTS is once again achieving its intended purpose whilst
maintaining a very impressive level of professionalism in the
eyes of the public (95%).
(92%) of the proportion of callers found it either "Very
easy" or "easy" to get through to the menu option
that they needed. This has increased since March (89%).
The satisfaction of using the Directory Line has improved
since the last survey at 83.1% (March—81.3%).
The number of positive responses concerning the effectiveness
of the Leaflet Line has increased from 60% in March to 70% of
callers who found the Leaflet Line either very useful or useful.
Finding new ways to get a better number of returns should
be raised at the next contract meeting; the return rates have
been dropping with each round of surveys.
Telephone Team need to review all the expressions of dissatisfaction
identified in this report and seek further details from relevant
contractors.
Data gathered during the course of this survey reported that
95% of customers said their expectations were very or quite satisfied
by the service (March—93%). This exceeded the targets for
the customer service scorecard.
Equalities Group would like to see a question included in
the next survey about disability.
The survey will continue to be repeated each quarter; if
you have comments regarding questions you would like to see included
in future surveys or questions regarding past surveys, please
contact CLS Direct.
METHOD
The Client Satisfaction Survey was carried out between 1
July and 31 July 2006, with a total of 1020 questionnaire forms
being sent out to clients via our 17 Contractors. Each organisation
was provided with at least 30 forms to be forwarded to a random
selection of clients. Where a contractor provides advice in more
than one category of law, 30 questionnaires were sent for each
category.
1
A couple of errors within this quarterly review (March 2006) have
since been noted and corrected for future reviews. The 10 relocations
allocated to Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) actually related
to Judicial Studies Board (JSB) Monitoring and Evaluation Team.
On top of this, certain legal aid expenditures were not calculated
correctly-meaning that the formula giving the total actuals and
forecasts was incorrect in the £ Gains worksheet. Back
2
1285/2705. Back
3
835/1879. Back
4
523 problems where advice was obtained of 5,015 respondents. Back
5
340 problems where advice was obtained (SR2002 PSA6 terms) of
3,088 respondents. Back
6
2001 survey: 110.3; 2006 survey: 110.1. This difference is not
significant. Back
| 
