Description of the programme

The Legal Services Commission funded this pilot programme and evaluation for three years from 2005-08. The programme aim was to widen access to money advice across England and Wales for groups experiencing high levels of deprivation and social exclusion. The pilots were designed to reach financially excluded people who would not normally seek advice from mainstream services and to test new methods of service delivery by local partnerships.

The pilot projects were delivered by 22 advice organisations (mainly from the voluntary sector, although two were from the commercial sector). The pilots commenced between January-July 2006 and completed activity by March 2008. The pilots were delivered by over 40 full-time equivalent case workers, from 150 outreach locations. Partner agencies included family support services; housing support services; the criminal justice system; community finance organisations; and other community-based organisations. Flexible delivery models were used, such as home visits and legal representation, including the use of video links.

Cases were open for an average of 101 days. The range spanned from an average of 51 days for clients in prisons and probation services up to 149 days for clients in employment-related services.

The study

This independent impact evaluation was undertaken by The Legal Services Research Centre (LSRC), the independent research division of the Legal Services Commission (LSC). The study included analysis of quantitative monthly monitoring data from organisations delivering the pilot, closed-case data and LSC client administration data from September 2006-August 2007). The data analysis was supplemented by qualitative analysis conducted by Ecorys (formerly Ecotec Research and Consulting) and the University of Bristol’s Personal Finance Research Centre.

Key findings

The evaluation identified the following impacts:

• • Approximately £6m of debt (8% of the recorded total) was written off among 5,863 closed cases (measured at case closure).
  • Annual income increased by an aggregate £1.5m, plus £353,000 in lump sum payments among closed cases (measured at case closure).
• • The pilot programme successfully provided advice to the target audience. 90% of clients met the financial exclusion criteria for eligibility. The majority of clients, 90%, had not previously sought advice in relation to a debt problem, rising to 97% among prisoner/probationer clients. Seven in 10 cases reached casework level; 22% involved general help and advice, 6% involved legal representation, and 2% involved referral to another provider.
  • However, only seven projects met the minimum performance threshold of 220 cases opened per FTE worker per annum, and only one pilot reached its target of 275 cases. Outreach services reached younger and more mixed race and black clients than comparator services, but fewer clients with disabilities. These variations held true after controlling for area and organisation effects.
  • The reports provide supporting and contextual (particularly qualitative) evidence about the client base and contexts for utilising the money advice services, and clients’ experiences and outcomes.

What are the costs?

• The budget was £6m, funded by the HM Treasury’s Financial Inclusion Fund. There were 22 projects and funding per project ranged from £60,000 to £1m depending on the number of advisers and length of contract.
• The average cost per closed case was £453.57, ranging significantly by project (from £197.71 to £10,000).
• The average cost of outreach cases was less than the average cost among comparator services in eight out of ten organisations providing both types of services.

Points to consider

• • Client characteristics varied by area and should be noted. Men were over-represented in some delivery venues compared to women and vice versa and the study found a strong link between age and venue accessed.
  • The administrative data was taken from a one-year reference period from the early part of the programme. Limiting the data used in the impact evaluation could skew the results, particularly in relation to closed cases (which may be shorter in duration on average and therefore less complex cases). This approach also limited the extent to which the findings were representative of the whole programme.
• • The transferability of the findings to other contexts may be limited, as the nature of the partner organisations and client characteristics had significant impacts on the programme delivery and outcomes.
  • The authors note unavoidable limitations in the comparative analysis with LSC contract data due to differences in (1) the comprehensiveness of data captured through different reporting systems and (2) contractual parameters in the delivery of debt advice, arising as a result, such as funding and legal restrictions. Due to limitations in the comparability of the data provided for the comparator group of services, caution must be taken when interpreting the success of reaching particular socio-demographic groups and the time taken to deliver and complete service provision.
  • The lack of a pre- and post-measurement against the comparator group also made it difficult to assess the impact of outreach on the financial wellbeing (e.g. total debt, income) of debt advice clients with mainstream debt advice provision.