Accessing Social Justice in Disadvantaged Communities: Dilemmas for Law Centres in the Context of Public Service Modernisation

Accessing social justice in disadvantaged communities: dilemmas for Law Centres in the context of public service modernisation

Professor Marjorie Mayo Gerald Koessl Matthew Scott Imogen Slater

March 2012

Dedication

To the memory of Julia Burdett, who sadly died before she could complete her work on this research project, and to all those who continue to strive for Justice for All.

Acknowledgements

We should like to express our warmest appreciation and thanks to all those who have participated in this research, giving so generously of their time despite all the other pressures on them over this period. In particular we should also like to thank our Advisory Committee members who were an invaluable source of advice and support throughout the project. The Law Centres Federation was an invaluable source of assistance too. And special thanks are due to those who very kindly gave detailed feedback on an earlier draft of this report.

We should also like to acknowledge the administrative support that we have received from Goldsmiths.

Finally and most importantly we should like to thank the Leverhulme Trust for their unfailing support including their flexibility in responding to the difficulties arising from staff sickness during the course of this research.

Contents

Glossary 4

Executive Summary 7

Introduction: Accessing social justice in disadvantaged communities 12

Chapter One: Social justice and the Welfare State 22

Chapter Two: Access to justice, Law Centres and pressures for welfare reform 30

Chapter Three: Law Centres and their ethos and values 38

Chapter Four: Challenges and dilemmas for Law Centre staff and volunteers following the Carter reforms 51

Chapter Five: Public service modernisation, restructuring and re-commodification 64

Chapter Six: Conflict and competition versus collaboration and planning 78

Case Studies 92

Chapter Seven: Public service modernisation, re-commodification and time: time pressures, time wasted and time valued 103

Chapter Eight: Alienation and demoralisation or the social reproduction of continuing labours of love? 113

Chapter Nine: Access to social justice for disadvantaged communities: issues of value and values 129

References 138

Appendix 1 Questionnaire

Appendix 2 Law Centres included

Appendix 3 Topic guides

3 Glossary ASA Advice Services Alliance

Best Value Introduced in England and Wales in 1999 by the Labour government, a policy to improve local services in terms of both quality and cost, seeking continuous improvement, and combining economy, efficiency and effectiveness

Carter Reforms Reforms proposed by Lord Carter (2006) and implemented 2007, focusing on changes to legal aid as explained in chapter two

CAB Citizens Advice Bureau

Commissioning The process by which government departments and local authorities secure their services, usually done through a legal procurement process Commodification The assignment of economic value to something not previously considered in economic terms CLACs Community Legal Advice Centres

CLANs Community Legal Advice Networks Decommodification In this context the protection of citizens from market forces (associated with welfare state services provided on the basis of need rather than the ability to pay) De-professionalization A 'condition' in which autonomy—a defining characteristic of a professional—is lost by a professional

Fixed fees A fixed price for each piece of work in contrast to legal charges accruing according to time spent Human Rights Act (1998) An Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom which "gives further effect" in UK law to the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights LCF Law Centres Federation

Law Society The representative body for solicitors in England and Wales

LAG Legal Action Group

Legal Aid Government funding to help with the costs of legal advice for people who cannot afford it

LSC Legal Services Commission

LGA Local Government Association

LSP Local Strategic Partnership

Management Committee The committee with responsibility for providing strategic direction to Law Centres (usually made up of some combination of community representatives and those with relevant professional skills). Management Committee members may also be trustees (see below) although they may not all have the specific responsibilities associated with being a trustee

Means test A determination of whether an individual or family is eligible for help from the government based on income and related assets

MoJ Ministry of Justice

Modernisation The government's strategy to reform and update public services

NHS National Health Service

Neoliberalism A contemporary political philosophy advocating economic liberalization, free trade, open markets, emphasising the role of the private sector

NEF New Economics Foundation

NPM New Public Management: an approach prominent since the 1980s, that market oriented management of the public sector will lead to greater cost- efficiency

New Right Developed in the UK in the early 1980s, as a strand of Conservatism, also associated with Thatcherism (Margaret Thatcher)

PLE Public legal education equips people with knowledge and skills to tackle law-related problems

Pro bono Pro bono publico translates from Latin as ‘for the public good’: in the legal profession this term refers to lawyers providing services free, on a voluntary basis, to those who are unable to afford them

5 QC Queen’s Counsel, lawyers appointed by letters patent to be one of her Majesty’s Counsel

SROI Social Return on Investment; a principles-based methodology for measuring extra-financial value, including environmental and social value not currently reflected in conventional accounting

Stakeholder A person, group, or organization that has direct or indirect stake in an organization, partnership or similar endeavour

Taylorism Named after Frederick W. Taylor (1856-1915) – aimed to introduce greater time-efficiency into the production of goods by breaking down tasks into a set of smaller tasks that could be performed by any worker regardless of skills at higher speed and reduced cost. This was done by redirecting the control and management of time away from workers into the hands of management, which left workers with less control and autonomy over the rhythm and timing of their work.

Trades Council An association of labour unions or branches in a given geographical area

Trustees The name that charity law uses to define the group of people who have ultimate responsibility for an organisation that is a recognised charity: they may also be called the Management Committee, Directors, the Executive Committee, etc.

Unified Contract The Unified Contract for civil legal aid providers (2007) replaced the General Civil Contract and Family Mediation Contract. It brings conditions for not-for-profit advisors into line with solicitors who carry out civil legal aid work

VCS Voluntary and Community Sector

6 Executive Summary

The research explored the impact of public service modernisation agendas as these were being experienced by public service professionals and volunteers engaged in Law Centres. Law Centres were providing front-line advice to individuals and communities in disadvantaged areas, information and advice services that have been identified as centrally important to public service modernisation agendas, as governments have been aiming to shift the balance of power and accountability away from public service providers towards more active and informed citizens and service users.

Were these policy agendas facilitating the development of more effective, more accountable services? Or conversely were they being experienced as demotivating and demoralising, potentially undermining the occupational values and identities of those involved? More specifically the research also aimed to identify the ways in which these changes were being addressed, what strategies were being adopted to manage competing pressures and demands whilst maintaining professional ethical standards. There are potential implications here for debates on the future of the public service ethos, more generally.

The first stage of the research consisted of a postal/electronic survey of 107 Law Centre staff, volunteers and management committee members and trustees. This survey was followed up with two rounds of interviews, 112 interviews in total, the first round being with Law Centre staff and volunteers (including management committee members and trustees) and the second round being with other stakeholders, including local authority officers and councillors and representatives of other advice agencies. Including the views of other stakeholders gives added weight to the research’s conclusions about the value of Law Centres, as well as the values of those who work in them.

Chapter One: Social justice and the Welfare State

Before exploring the role of the law, and access to legal advice and advocacy, this chapter steps back to examine the framework of earlier debates on social justice, social citizenship and the establishment of the Welfare State. Access to justice was central to these debates on social welfare, emphasising rights as well as obligations, and the pursuit of social justice agendas.

Over the years, however, public services have come under scrutiny, as successive governments have set out to shift the balance in favour of increasing the scope of private market mechanisms. This chapter concludes by summarising recent debates on the implications, including the possible implications for the public service ethos and for professional values, more generally.

7 Chapter Two: Access to justice, Law Centres and pressures for welfare reform

This chapter considers the question of access to justice, legal aid and the context for the establishment of Law Centres more specifically. The post war Welfare State fell short of the founders’ aspirations in a number of respects, including failing to enshrine the principle of equal access to the law effectively, in practice. The first Law Centres that were set up in response to these shortcomings were part of wider pressures for rights and equalities in the late sixties and early seventies. The chapter concludes by examining the impact of public service modernisation policies, particularly the impact of the Carter reforms, as these have been affecting Law Centres more recently. Finally, the chapter considers the potential impact of proposed legislation severely limiting the scope of legal aid.

Chapter Three: Law Centres and their ethos and values

Law Centres were established with strong commitments to the values inherent in providing equal access to the law, regardless of the ability to pay and/ or of other social advantages and disadvantages, together with commitments to working with disadvantaged communities to promote social justice agendas more widely. In addition, the early Law Centres were typically committed to collective and collaborative ways of working, with strong community involvement. There have been variations between Law Centres, and shifts over time. Law Centres have generally experienced the most significant challenges to their ethos, however, as a result of the impact of public service modernisation. The impact on the motivations and commitments of Law Centre staff and volunteers is outlined (and then explored further in chapter eight).

Chapter Four: Challenges and dilemmas for Law Centre staff and volunteers

This chapter focuses more specifically on the challenges and dilemmas that have been facing Law Centre staff and volunteers, firstly with the introduction of the Carter reforms, under New Labour, (introducing competitive tendering for contracts and fixed fees for payments) and then with more recent threats to the provision of legal aid, more generally.

The chapter concludes by identifying key pressures and associated dilemmas that have been the subject of contemporary debates within and around Law Centres. These have included financial and administrative pressures, shifting targets and high levels of uncertainty and stress as a result of the tendering process. There has been less time for clients, it has been argued, and less time for preventative policy work or for public legal education. Collaborative relationships have been put under pressure, both within Law Centres and between Law Centres and other agencies, with increasing competition for contracts. The dilemmas associated with responding to these challenges are explored in more detail in subsequent chapters.

8 Chapter Five: Public service modernisation, restructuring and re- commodification

One of the distinctive features of public service modernisation agendas has been the emphasis upon restructuring management and accountability systems, rather than relying upon previous accountability systems. The dilemmas associated with these changes were major issues in many Law Centres, both for Law Centre staff and for their management committees/ boards of trustees who found that they required increasing levels of expertise (such as legal and financial expertise) in order to fulfil the requirements of their roles.

There were, in addition, dilemmas around staff pay and conditions, and the extent to which relatively favourable conditions could be maintained in the current funding context. This chapter also includes some discussion of the pressures for restructuring work processes, including concerns about the potential for deskilling amongst professionals, and concerns about the uses and potential abuses of volunteers.

This chapter concludes by focussing upon one of the most controversial dilemmas facing Law Centres in the current context. When the research began, charging clients for services was typically perceived as being in conflict with Law Centres’ ethos and values. By the time that the research was being concluded the balance was shifting, as Law Centre staff, management committees/ trustees and volunteers faced the prospect that many if not all of the resources for legal aid services might be lost altogether, presenting a dilemma to which there were no comfortable answers. It was evident that charging could be expected to provide no more than the most partial solutions, in any case, though, given the typically low income levels of most if not all Law Centres’ clients.

Chapter Six: Conflict and competition versus collaboration and planning

Another of the distinctive features of public service modernisation agendas, and marketisation agendas more generally, has been the pressure to compete, competition being assumed to promote increasing efficiency and choice. There had been conflicts and experiences of competition with other agencies in the past. But Law Centres had typically focused upon the importance of collaborative ways of working, where possible, with other organisations and agencies, where there were shared interests. The funding system for legal aid that was introduced following the Carter reforms exacerbated existing tendencies towards competition, however, as agencies bid against each other for contracts.

As Law Centres struggled to construct survival strategies, though, a number explored alternative approaches, developing ways of collaborating rather than competing with like-minded agencies, aiming to provide co-ordinated services that were more user-friendly, as well as being more cost effective. The case studies that are included in this chapter illustrate these new strategies in

9 practice, with Law Centres at the centre of networks of advice agencies, linked through telephone and web based connections to provide comprehensive services to clients and communities across cities.

Chapter Seven: Public service modernisation, re-commodification and time: time pressures, time wasted and time valued

The funding system that was associated with the Carter reforms required the time allotted to each client to be carefully monitored and controlled, in order to keep within the parameters approved for payment. This posed major dilemmas in many Law Centres, aiming, as they typically were, to meet the needs of clients holistically, taking the time to listen to clients in disadvantaged communities who may have been presenting a number of related problems, including problems with expressing themselves in English as a second language.

Working holistically and in preventative ways was seen in terms of time valued and time well spent rather than in terms of time wasted. A number of Law Centres’ stakeholders, including a number of local authorities, contrasted what they saw as the value of time spent working in such preventative ways with the time that was, in their view, being wasted as a result of cumbersome bureaucratic requirements, together with the time wasted as a result of poor decision-making in public bodies, leading to subsequent appeals. Time pressures emerged, then, as a major set of challenges and dilemmas.

Chapter Eight: Alienation and demoralisation or the social reproduction of continuing labours of love?

This chapter draws together evidence on the impacts for the individual members of staff and the volunteers involved with Law Centres. One of the criticisms that has been levelled at new public management systems is that they risk undermining the very motivations and commitments that brought public service professionals into public service professions in the first place.

The research certainly identified examples of disaffection and demoralisation amongst Law Centre staff. There were some indications too that those coming into Law Centres more recently were less clearly committed to Law Centres’ espoused ethos and values – volunteer students, for example, or recently qualified law graduates aiming to gain experience and so enhance their employability in difficult times. What the research did not identify, however, was any widespread tendency for the next generation of staff and volunteers to embrace more marketised values. There was evidence, on the contrary, that young staff and volunteers could actually develop strengthened commitment to public service values as a direct result of their experiences in Law Centres. And there was plenty of evidence to testify to the continuing commitment of those staff and volunteers, including volunteer members of management committees/ trustees, who were giving of their time as ‘labours of love’, facing dilemmas that would have been considerably less taxing for them personally if they had not been investing so much emotional labour in the process.

10 Chapter Nine: Access to social justice for disadvantaged communities: issues of value and values

The final chapter reflects on the implications for access to justice and the potentially wider implications for strategies for social justice, social citizenship and social welfare more generally. The research demonstrated the value placed on Law Centres, just as the interviews demonstrated the importance of the ethos and values that were underpinning them. The challenges and dilemmas that public service modernisation have been posing have been emerging powerfully. But so has the determination of those engaged in developing alternative responses, re-examining ways of providing services most effectively whilst holding onto the Law Centres’ underlying ethos, developing more efficient ways of managing their operations without losing their commitment to team work, increasing the use of voluntary effort without exploiting unpaid labour, using new technologies without undermining the importance of personal face-to-face support for clients, working collaboratively in partnership with other organisations and agencies rather than increasing competition between them.

As a lawyer who had been providing pro bono advice in a Law Centre reflected, without Law Centres people in the communities that they currently served would struggle to access justice. ‘What is justice’ she concluded, ‘if people don’t understand it and can’t access it’? As another solicitor added ‘the volume of unmet need would expand… Law Centres enable people who would otherwise be unable to do so ‘to have access to justice and recourse to remedies. ..This is what lawyers provide to citizens, and what should be available to citizens in democratic societies under the rule of law’.

11 Introduction: Accessing social justice in disadvantaged communities: dilemmas for Law Centres in the context of public service modernisation

This study focuses upon the dilemmas that have been faced by Law Centre staff and volunteers, aiming to provide access to justice for all in an increasingly challenging context, characterised by public service reform, marketisation and public expenditure cuts on an unprecedented scale. Although focused upon this specific topic however - the provision of legal aid in disadvantaged communities - the research raises issues of wider relevance too. Access to justice represents a cornerstone for democratic societies and social citizenship. This was a central theme in the discussions that led up to the development of the post war Welfare State in Britain.

The Welfare State has been the subject of continuing debate since that time and particularly so in recent years, as different governments have developed strategies to promote public service modernisation. Here too there are significant implications in relation to access to justice. This is because public service modernisation emphasises the importance of having informed consumers, aware of and competent in making choices and accessing rights and services. But without effective access to legal information and advocacy people in disadvantaged communities risk being effectively deprived of such options. Law Centres have been relatively under-researched in the past and so provide the research with a relatively fresh context within which to develop potentially new insights into wider issues and dilemmas.

Were these policy agendas facilitating the development of new forms of professionalism, based on new forms of accountability to service users? Were service users being put in the driving seat, empowered to make choices, as informed consumers, as some academics and policy professionals have suggested (Le Grand, 2003)? Or conversely were they being experienced as promoting new forms of de-professionalisation (Banks, 2004) potentially undermining the occupational values and identities of those involved in Law Centres’ work.

More specifically too the research has also aimed to identify the ways in which these changes were being managed, what strategies were being adopted to manage competing pressures and demands whilst maintaining professional ethical standards, how these responses might vary in differing settings and what might be the implications for professional education and continuing professional development? Whilst focussing on Law Centres the research raises issues with relevance in relation to the possible implications for debates on the future of the public service ethos and the Welfare State’s future, more generally.

The first part of this chapter introduces the research, describing the research processes involved. This sets the context, explaining the ways in which the research strategy was adjusted to take account of changing circumstances. The

12 second part of the chapter then moves on to introduce the chapters that follow.

The research methodology

The research was planned to take place in three stages, the first being a literature review and postal/ electronic survey of Law Centre staff and volunteers (including management committee members/ trustees) to obtain benchmarks for the second stage. This was originally planned to involve sets of semi-structured interviews with between 30 and 40 staff and volunteers from a sample of Law Centres. Through this more qualitative approach the research aimed to obtain in-depth understandings to complement the quantitative data from the survey. The third and final stage would involve focus group discussions to explore preliminary findings and test conclusions before completing the research and moving into the final dissemination stage.

In the event, as the Interim Report explained, the start of the project was delayed due to issues of ill-health, although the research subsequently got back on track (albeit on a revised schedule). Meanwhile, Law Centres themselves were experiencing the impact of the implementation of funding changes. Several Law Centres closed during this period, some staff members have been made redundant and further financial challenges are anticipated in the wake of more recent public expenditure decisions. Following the election of May 2010, public policy towards resourcing legal aid has also been under review, with new legislation being introduced, leading to further significant challenges for Law Centres, raising fundamental questions about their longer- term futures. The most recent estimate from the Law Centres Federation is that a significant proportion of Law Centres have very uncertain futures and may close if current proposals to take key aspects of welfare law out of the scope of legal aid become law. This changing context has required some flexibility in the research strategy, as the subsequent sections outline.

It has also required some sensitivity. The researchers needed to take account of the challenges facing Law Centres, including the threat of redundancies for staff awaiting the uncertain outcome of tendering processes. There were occasions when those who had so generously agreed to be interviewed were evidently stressed. The research team needed to take account of these factors, to try to ensure that stress levels would in no way be exacerbated as a result of the research process itself. In the event, however, a number of those who were interviewed subsequently commented that they had actually found it useful to have had this space - to reflect upon the dilemmas that they were facing and the strategies that were being adopted in response. The team would like to express our deep appreciation of the responsiveness of so many Law Centre staff and volunteers, despite these typically challenging circumstances.

The Interim Report provided a summary of progress with the research, to date, together with some indications of future directions, in the light of the emerging findings. The report covered the literature review stage, the postal/ electronic survey and the semi-structured interviews that had been completed to date, together with plans for completing the fieldwork, in the coming

13 period. As this report explained, following consultation with the umbrella body, the Law Centres Federation (LCF), this questionnaire was administered electronically as well as by post. The questions were kept to a minimum, because of advice received from the LCF, taking account of the time pressures on Law Centre staff.

Despite some initial questioning as to whether the survey would be completed by many respondents, in these circumstances, the final total of completed questionnaires was 107. Of these 44 (just over 40%) were men and 56 (just over 52%) were women, with the remaining 7 respondents not answering this question. In terms of ethnicity, 69 (64.5%) described themselves as ‘White British’, 11 (10.3%) as ‘White Other’, 9 (8.4%) as ‘Asian’, 4 (3.7%) as ‘Black’, 2 (1.9%) as ‘Mixed Race’ and the remaining 4 respondents describing themselves as ‘Other’ or ‘Prefer not to specify’.

Table 1: How would you describe your ethnicity? Frequency Percent Black 4 3.7% Asian 9 8.4% Mixed Race 2 1.9% White British 69 64.5% White Other 11 10.3% Other 1 0.9% Prefer not to 3 2.8% specify Missing 8 7.5% Total 107 100%

In total these replies referred to experiences in 25 different Law Centres (out of a total which was earlier given as 55, although several have closed since this figure was last obtained). These covered a range of Law Centres, urban and rural, large and small, including longer and more recently established ones. At this point it should also be emphasised that the Law Centres that are referred to subsequently vary considerably in terms of their histories, funding, size, organisational structures, overall focus and the areas of law that they cover (with varying administrative and funding procedures and processes) . This means that issues identified in any one Law Centre will not necessarily apply in the same ways elsewhere. And the impact of the current policies and potential changes to these may be experienced in differing ways.

Following on from the survey, semi-structured interviews were completed, to explore the issues that had been raised in greater depth. Interviews were

14 completed with 54 people from 28 Law Centres. Of these 45 interviews were carried out on a one-to one basis. Two sets of colleagues (i.e. four individuals) chose to be interviewed together with a colleague and four further people were interviewed as a group. In addition, three other individuals were present for part of a joint interview (two of these left the group interview in order to see clients before the discussions were completed and one joined an interview with a colleague, being invited to join in order to add comments from their particular perspective, as a young volunteer). Almost all the interviews were carried out in person, but a small number (2 interviews) were carried out over the telephone. In one case this was due to bad weather that disrupted travel plans. The other telephone interview was with a respondent who was too busy to meet but was prepared to be interviewed by telephone. In each case, those interviewed were subsequently provided with an (edited) transcript of the discussion and offered the opportunity to point to any corrections or significant omissions. The overwhelming majority agreed that this was indeed an accurate record of the discussion. The small minority of those that did respond, typically with comments, added minor points of clarification, or identified comments that should not be directly quoted as this could identify particular individuals.

The Interim Report was also circulated to those who had participated and their views invited, for further discussion. The reality was, however, that although a number did express satisfaction at receiving feedback, this was a very challenging period for Law Centres and it was difficult to engage in more detailed discussions at this stage.

Having completed this round of interviews the Advisory Group was consulted before embarking on the next stage of the research. On the basis of their advice (which endorsed the proposals in the Interim Report), it was decided to interview a range of other stakeholders to obtain their views on the issues in question together with their views on Law Centres’ strategies for survival in such a challenging climate, without compromising their ethos and values. This next round of interviews with other stakeholders would provide triangulation. More specifically this would also add depth to our understanding of the importance of and the scope for collaboration between Law Centres and other agencies, whether in the voluntary and/ or statutory sectors. This was emerging as a central theme in terms of forward looking strategies for survival.

So for this second phase 58 semi-structured interviews were carried out with voluntary sector advice agencies and voluntary sector networks, local authority officers and local councillors, representatives of other funding agencies (including the Legal Services Commission), lawyers with particular expertise in legal education and training and private sector lawyers, including those providing pro bono advice, together with a number of other volunteers, (as this group had been relatively under-represented in the first round of interviews). Of these second round interviews 49 were face to face and 9 were telephone interviews. Here too, each person interviewed was provided with an edited draft of the discussion and invited to point to any corrections or significant omissions. Once again very few chose to make any such

15 suggestions, the overwhelming majority simply agreeing that this was indeed an accurate record of the discussion. In addition there were two meetings with the Law Centres Federation (LCF) in London to take advice and then to offer interim feedback, together with a telephone interview with a member of the LCF staff with specialist knowledge of the Northern region.

In order to build up more detailed pictures of the ways in which Law Centres and other stakeholders were working together, this final stage of the research focused upon a limited number of geographical locations, selected to cover a range of contexts. In all, eight locations were selected for further study. One further location was identified but experiences of collaboration were somewhat negative in this locality (there having been considerable competition for a Legal Service Commission contract) and the future was uncertain at that particular stage.

This raises an important issue of bias however. Whilst the Law Centres that were being referred to in the second phase were experiencing significant challenges, they were also amongst those that were developing some of the most positive survival strategies in response. The pictures that emerge from this second phase of the research are not then necessarily representative of the situation nationally. Although this limitation needs to be borne in mind, however, the findings can be seen as significant in their own right. This is because they demonstrate some of the ways in which Law Centres can still develop strategies to survive and to succeed in continuing to provide access to justice for disadvantaged individuals and communities - without losing sight of their professional ethos and public service values - even in the context of the current challenges.

The following section explains the outline of the chapters to come, providing the context before exploring the research findings and conclusions.

The chapters that follow

Chapter One: Social justice and the Welfare State

Before exploring the role of the law, and access to legal advice and advocacy, this chapter steps back to examine the framework of earlier debates on social justice, social citizenship and the Welfare State more generally. How did contemporary debates conceptualise public policy interventions to promote rights to education, health, welfare and social security (including the contributions of T. H. Marshall, Richard Titmuss and others who conceptualised social welfare in terms of social citizenship, rights as well as obligations, and the pursuit of social justice agendas)? And how far did these debates frame subsequent debates?

Amongst more recent theorists Esping Andersen’s ‘The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism’ has particular relevance, it will be suggested, with his theorisation of de-commodification. Esping Andersen argued that removing,

16 or (more realistically) reducing, the influence of market forces was significant and not only in terms of enabling citizens to access services that they might otherwise struggle to afford. This also challenged the very notion that welfare was a ‘good’ to be bought and sold like any other ‘good’ in the marketplace. And in addition, he argued, de-commodifying services was significant too, in terms of strengthening the bargaining power of working people more generally. By this, he was referring to the ways in which facilitating access to education, for example, could strengthen the position of the less powerful in society, enabling them to bargain more effectively for social rights and social justice agendas, more generally.

Esping Andersen contrasted this broadly social democratic approach to the provision of welfare, (as developed in Scandinavian countries in the past, for example), with other models, including the more liberal, market-orientated approaches that have characterised the provision of welfare in countries such as the USA, and increasingly in Britain too. Like Titmuss and others before him, Esping Andersen pointed to the tensions inherent in policies to promote choice - increasing choices for some whilst effectively reducing choices for other individuals and communities less able to meet their needs through the private market, for a variety of reasons, including the lack of information as well as the lack of money and other resources.

This argument is revisited in chapter five, when considering the implications of current policies to promote marketisation whilst effectively restricting access to legal information and advocacy, in a period of major welfare state restructuring. This chapter concludes by summarising recent debates on marketisation and on public service modernisation agendas more generally, including the potential impacts on public service professionals.

Chapter Two: Access to justice, Law Centres and pressures for welfare reform

This chapter summarises the history of public policies concerned with access to justice and social citizenship for all, starting from debates in the post World War Two period. In the event, the post war Welfare State failed to enshrine the principle of equal access to the law, leaving gaps that were subsequently taken up by radical lawyers, leading to the development of the first Law Centres, as part of wider pressures for rights and equalities in the late sixties and early seventies. Previous studies of Law Centres set the context for the discussion of more recent challenges, including changes in the law and changes in the ways in which the communities that Law Centres were set up to service have changed, over time. The chapter then moves on to examine the development of legal aid policies and the impact of public service modernisation policies as these have been affecting Law Centres from the nineties to the present time, including the changes to legal aid that have been the subject of current legislation. As this chapter demonstrates, there are parallels here with the wider debates that were summarised in chapter one.

Chapter Three: Law Centres and their ethos and values

Law Centres were established with staff with strong commitments to the values inherent in providing equal access to the law, regardless of the ability to pay and/ or of other social advantages and disadvantages, together with commitments to working with disadvantaged communities to promote social justice agendas more widely. In addition, the early Law Centres were typically committed to collective and collaborative ways of working, with strong community involvement, developing preventative work as well as working with individuals holistically. Whilst there have been variations between Law Centres, and shifts in motivations over time, in response to wider changes, Law Centres have generally experienced the most significant challenges to their ethos as a result of the impact of public service modernisation. The impact on the motivations and commitments of Law Centre staff and volunteers is outlined, and then explored further in chapter eight whilst chapter nine returns to the issue of the value of Law Centres overall.

Chapter Four: Challenges and dilemmas for Law Centre staff and volunteers

Having outlined the context for Law Centres and their ethos, in the context of public service modernisation, this chapter focuses more specifically on the challenges and dilemmas that have been facing Law Centre staff and volunteers, firstly with the introduction of the ‘Carter’ reforms, under New Labour, (introducing competitive tendering for contracts and fixed fees for payments) and then with more recent threats to the provision of legal aid, more generally. The chapter concludes by identifying key dilemmas that have been the subject of contemporary debates within and about Law Centres.

Chapter Five: Public service modernisation, restructuring and re- commodification

One of the distinctive features of public service modernisation agendas has been the emphasis upon restructuring management and accountability systems, including the increasing use of performance targets rather than relying upon previous accountability systems, including the type of collective ways of working and community accountability systems that had been typical features of many Law Centres. When the research began, the dilemmas associated with these changes were major issues in many Law Centres. Collective ways of working fitted uneasily with the requirements of the Legal Services Commission, however, and management committees/ boards of trustees found that they required increasing levels of expertise (such as legal and financial expertise) in order to fulfil their roles, providing accountability upwards.

There were, in addition, dilemmas around staff pay and conditions of employment, and the extent to which relatively favourable conditions could be

18 maintained in the current funding context. This chapter includes some discussion of pressures for restructuring the labour process itself, including concerns about the potential for deskilling amongst professionals, through the increasing use of alternative and cheaper forms of labour, including, in some cases, volunteers.

This chapter concludes by focussing upon one of the most controversial dilemmas facing Law Centres in the current context. When the research began, charging clients for services was typically perceived as being in conflict with Law Centres’ ethos and values, although it was already clear that this was an issue that would need to be addressed, in the future (and was indeed being addressed in a minority of Law Centres). By the time that the research was being concluded the balance was shifting, as Law Centre staff, management committees/ trustees and volunteers faced the prospect that many if not all the legal aid services then on offer might be lost altogether, presenting a dilemma to which there were no comfortable answers.

Chapter Six: Conflict and competition versus collaboration and planning

Law Centres have experienced conflicts with other agencies in the past, (when acting as advocates for clients, challenging local authorities over inadequate or inequitable service provision, for example). More recently pressures towards conflict and competition have been increasing, however. One of the distinctive features of public service modernisation agendas, and marketisation agendas more generally, has been the pressure to compete, competition being assumed by governments to promote increasing efficiency and choice.

A number of Law Centres had already had some experience of competing with other agencies, such as Citizens Advice Bureaux, and other advice agencies, in practice, although there were also Law Centres that focused upon the importance of collaborative ways of working in principle, aiming to provide holistic services to communities, working with other organisations and agencies, where there were shared interests in policy and campaigning work. The funding system for legal aid that was introduced following the Carter reforms exacerbated existing tendencies towards competition, however, as agencies bid against each other for contracts. As Law Centres struggled to develop survival strategies, a number of them began to explore ways of collaborating rather than competing with other like-minded agencies, aiming to provide co-ordinated services that were more user-friendly, as well as being more cost effective. In some cases these explorations were initiated or at least supported by funders such as local authorities, keen to identify ways of making savings whilst meeting increasing needs for advice and advocacy services as a result of welfare reforms and public expenditure cuts.

19 Chapter Seven: Public service modernisation, recommodification and time: time pressures, time wasted and time valued

Another distinguishing aspect of marketised labour processes relates to the issue of time, and pressures on the use of time, in order to maximise productivity. The funding system that was associated with the Carter reforms mirrored private sector systems in that the time allotted to each client needed to be carefully monitored and controlled, in order to keep within the parameters approved for payment. This posed major dilemmas in many Law Centres, aiming, as they typically were, to meet the needs of clients holistically, taking the time to listen to clients in disadvantaged communities who may have been presenting a number of related problems, including problems with expressing themselves in English as a second language and/ or as a result of having experienced mental health or other disempowering issues in their lives.

Working holistically and in preventative ways, with communities as well as with individuals, was seen in terms of time valued, and time well spent - making effective savings for the longer term through preventative policy work - rather than in terms of time wasted. On the contrary in fact, a number of those involved with Law Centres contrasted what they saw as the real value of time spent working in such ways with clients and communities with the time that was, in their view, being wasted as a result of cumbersome bureaucratic requirements, together with the time wasted as a result of poor decision- making in public bodies, leading to the need for subsequent appeals. Time pressures emerged as a major set of challenges and dilemmas then.

Chapter Eight: Alienation and demoralisation or the social reproduction of continuing labours of love?

This chapter draws together evidence on the impact of these challenges and dilemmas for the individual members of staff and the volunteers involved with Law Centres. One of the criticisms that has been levelled at New Public Management systems is that they presuppose negative views of human motivation, assuming that employees in general, and professionals more specifically, need the discipline of targets, imposed from above. As a result, critics have argued, target-type cultures actually risk alienating public service workers, undermining the very motivations and commitments that brought them into the public service professions in the first place.

20 public service type values as a direct result of their experiences in community Law Centres. And there was plenty of evidence to testify to the continuing commitment of those staff and volunteers, including volunteer members of management committees/ trustees, who were giving of their time as ‘labours of love’, facing dilemmas that would have been considerably less taxing for them personally if they had not been investing so much emotional labour in the process.

Chapter Nine: Access to social justice for disadvantaged communities: politics, policies and social change

The final chapter reflects back to the starting points, the implications for access to justice for disadvantaged communities and the potentially wider implications for strategies for social justice, social citizenship and social welfare more generally. The case for the continuing public resourcing of Law Centres will be argued, together with the case for public support for advice and advocacy services more generally.

Meanwhile Law Centres face continuing dilemmas. How far can strategies to safeguard services be developed in ways that strengthen rather than undermine the basic values and principles of public service provision? And most importantly, how far can such survival strategies strengthen the position of those who provide, as well as those who need, public services, empowering communities to work more effectively with progressive organisations and groups in the pursuit of social justice agendas more widely.

21 Chapter One: Social justice and the Welfare State

Before exploring the role of the law, and access to legal advice and advocacy as the background to the study of Law Centres, this chapter steps back to summarise the framework of earlier debates (T. H. Marshall, Richard Titmuss and others) on social justice, social citizenship and the Welfare State more generally. How did some of these debates conceptualise public policy interventions to promote social rights such as rights to education, health, welfare and social security and what were the implications for access to justice? These approaches have been challenged from differing perspectives over time, as the chapter goes on to illustrate, setting the context for more recent debates as these relate to subsequent chapters.

The chapter concludes by summarising recent debates on marketisation and on public service modernisation agendas more generally and their potential impacts on public service professionals. This sets the framework for the discussion of legal aid and the implications of recent changes in the provision of legal aid for the staff and volunteers of Law Centres in this report.

Social justice and the origins of the post World War Welfare State

Even before the Welfare State was established, access to justice figured in discussions about the nature of the reforms to be considered, once the Second World War was over. As Baroness Hale pointed out in her Sir Henry Hodge Memorial Lecture for the Law Society in 2011, ‘when the welfare state was established in the United Kingdom after the Second World War, a legal aid and advice scheme was an important part of it’. (Hale,2011. 6). She quoted EJ Cohn, writing in 1943, arguing that

‘Legal aid is a service which the modern state owes its citizens as a matter of principle …. Just as the modern State tries to protect the poorer classes against the common dangers of life, such as unemployment, disease, old age, social oppression, etc., so it should protect them when legal difficulties arise. Indeed the case for such protection is stronger than the case for any other form of protection. The State is not responsible for the outbreak of epidemics, for old age or economic crises. But the State is responsible for the law’. (Cohn, 1943).

This emphasis upon social protection was central to the thinking behind the 1942 Beveridge Report, with its emphasis upon identifying the major causes and so preventing poverty and social distress, (through State organised insurance schemes, to provide pensions, sickness and unemployment benefits, for example). The National Health Service was established in this period, underpinned by similar approaches to the role of the state, in meeting the needs of its citizens. Beveridge himself actually assumed a wider view of the state’s responsibilities than Cohn, too, recognising that the post war Welfare State settlement that was being established would depend upon full employment, a situation that the state could, it was widely believed, ensure through Keynsian economic policies.

22 According to the sociologist T. H. Marshall, (Marshall, 1950) this post war settlement represented a new relationship between citizens and the state. In the past, citizenship had been defined firstly in terms of the civil rights that were achieved in the eighteenth century and then in terms of political rights too, (with the extension of the right to vote to all citizens including women, by the early twentieth century). The third phase, according to T. H. Marshall, extended the concept of citizenship still further to include social rights and responsibilities, by virtue of being a citizen, entitled to welfare. Discussing these social rights he included the example of the (then) Legal Aid Bill ‘which offers a social service designed to strengthen the civil right of the citizen to settle his disputes in a court of law’ (Marshall, 1950. 48). There are parallels here with more recent thinking on rights and access to social welfare and justice, including that of Amartya Sen (Sen, 1993). Sen has focussed upon people’s capabilities , capabilities which depend upon factors such as their access to education, if people are to be in a position to access their formal rights and freedoms as citizens – just as citizens need to have the means to access their rights in law, if they are to obtain justice (Hale, 2011).

This emphasis on rights was central to the thinking of other influential thinkers of the post war period too, including Titmuss, the author of a number of seminal publications on social welfare and the state. For Titmuss one of the key characteristics of the Welfare State should be that services should be provided ‘as social rights, on criteria of the needs of specific categories, groups and territorial areas and not dependent on individual tests of means’ (Titmuss, 1968. 122). The state must provide an infrastructure of universal services, he argued, promoting values of equality, freedom and social integration rather than simply providing residual (and implicitly second class) services for the poor, to be provided on the basis of discretion, rather than on the basis of entitlement as of right.

These approaches have attracted controversy, however, and have been subject to criticisms from varying political positions over time. Titmuss himself was only too aware of the importance of addressing criticisms from the Left, as poverty and discrimination persisted, despite the Welfare State, problems that were becoming increasingly evident by the mid to late sixties. He was also concerned to address the increasingly evident failures to meet the needs of Black and Minority Ethnic communities (although he was less focussed on addressing feminist criticisms of the paternalistic ways in which services were being planned and delivered, Williams, 1989). But he was particularly concerned to challenge the criticisms of the Right, including Milton Friedman, whose influence has continued to impact subsequently with the rise of neoliberal approaches from the eighties.

As Titmuss summarised the argument (Titmuss, 1968) Friedman and others of the Chicago School of Economics were arguing that as societies were becoming richer (the assumption of the time being that UK, like other Western democracies would continue to experience economic growth), the vast majority of their populations would be in a position to satisfy their own welfare needs in the private market without the help of the state. So they should have the freedom to make their own choices, expressing their own preferences and priorities. Titmuss disagreed. He argued that economic

23 growth per se would not solve the problem of poverty, nor would private markets in welfare solve the problems of discrimination and stigma (associated with residual approaches to welfare provision).

In particular Titmuss challenged Friedman’s assumption that private markets in welfare offer consumers more choice, illustrating his argument with the example of private occupational pensions which offered employees little control, let alone full transferability if workers moved jobs (and little in the way of guaranteed security, as has become only too apparent more recently). Finally, and most importantly, Titmuss challenged Friedman’s assumption that social services, including medical care, have no characteristics that differentiate them from goods in the private market, pointing out that consumers were not necessarily in a position to make informed choices, nor could inadequate services simply be returned like faulty goods to the place of purchase. On the contrary, poor health choices – or indeed poor educational choices - could have life long consequences for the unfortunate ill-informed consumer. The poorest and least informed citizens would be precisely those who could be expected to be most disadvantaged in terms of making such choices or indeed accessing their rights at all.

More recent debates

These debates have continued in varying forms, as subsequent governments have addressed the question of the balance between public and private provision in the field of social welfare. Amongst more recent theorists Esping Andersen’s ‘The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism’ (Esping Andersen, 1990) has particular relevance, with his theorisation of de-commodification, building on T. H. Marshall’s approach to developing the view that social citizenship constituted the core idea of the Welfare State. Esping Andersen argued that removing, or (more realistically) reducing, the influence of market forces has been a significant distinguishing feature of social democratic approaches to social welfare. This was not only in terms of enabling citizens to access services that they might otherwise struggle to afford. Even more importantly, he argued, de-commodifying services was significant too, in terms of strengthening the bargaining power of working people more generally, rather than stigmatising them. By this approach he was including the ways in which facilitating access to education, for example, could strengthen the position of the less powerful in society, enabling them to bargain more effectively for social rights and social justice agendas, more generally. There would seem to be parallels here with Amartya Sen’s discussion of capabilities, if people are to access their formal rights and freedoms effectively (Sen, 1993).

Esping Andersen contrasted this broadly social democratic approach to the provision of welfare, (as developed in Scandinavian countries in the past, for example), with other models, the corporatist model as developed in Germany, for example and the more liberal, market-orientated approaches that have characterised the provision of welfare in countries such as the USA, and increasingly in Britain too. Like Titmuss and others before him, Esping Andersen pointed to the tensions inherent in policies to promote choice -

24 increasing choices for some whilst effectively reducing choices for other individuals and communities less able to meet their needs through the private market, for a variety of reasons, including the lack of information as well as the lack of other resources. As Titmuss had earlier pointed out, some people’s welfare might result in other people’s ‘illfare’ (Abel-Smith and Titmuss, 1974). Social policies driven by private insurance interests, for example, risked being ‘imposed without democratic discussion; without consideration of the moral consequences which may result from them’ (Titmuss, 1960. 2).

Neoliberalism and more recent policy developments

In more recent publications Esping Andersen developed his critique of the neoliberal case for privatisation and deregulation (Esping Andersen 1999, Esping Andersen 2002) contrasting Swedish with US approaches. Increased use of the private sector shifted costs rather than reducing expenditure completely, he argued, and the outcomes were increasingly unequal, leading him to the conclusion that: ‘A strategy based purely on deregulation and privatization cannot, like the American example shows, be welfare and efficient optimizing’ (Esping Andersen 1999. 178). But Britain was moving in the US direction, he suggested. ‘Rather than tame, regulate, or marginalize markets so as to ensure human welfare, the idea (of the ‘Third Way’ under New Labour) is to adapt and empower citizens so that they may be far better equipped to satisfy their welfare needs within the market. At its core, it is a supply-driven policy attempting to furnish citizens with the requisites needed for individual success. Hence its flagship policies are training and lifelong learning. The assumption seems to be that the social risks and class inequalities that emanate from markets can be overridden if we target policy so that all compete on a more equal footing’ (Esping Andersen et al, 2002. 5). As subsequent chapters illustrate however, individuals and communities in deprived situations were precisely those who most needed support, if they were to access their rights, as active and empowered citizens.

Left, feminist and anti-racist critics of the Welfare State such as Williams (Williams, 1989) responded to these shifts towards the more neoliberal approaches that Esping Anderson was critiquing by arguing that for all its faults and concessions to dominant interests, the Welfare State still represented an ‘important challenge by the working class to the social relations of capitalism – to get the state to safeguard the working class against the deleterious effects of capitalism’ (Williams, 1989, 205). As the Welfare State came under increasing attack an integrated strategy was needed, she argued, not merely to defend past gains but to promote an alternative to that being promoted by the New Right, with new concepts of egalitarianism ‘which embody class, ‘race’ and gender interests’ (Williams, 1989. xvi). The predominant policy response in Britain, in contrast, however, was to promote agendas of choice with increasing roles for private market mechanisms, including the increasing adoption of private sector based approaches to the management of public services in the interests of efficiency and cost effectiveness.

25 Marketisation and public service modernisation

There is an extensive literature on neoliberal approaches to social welfare. These include specific literatures on privatisation as well as specific literatures on the increasing role for market mechanisms within public and voluntary/ not-for-profit sectors along with the increasing adoption of private sector approaches to management in these sectors. The intention here is simply to summarise those aspects with particular relevance for subsequent chapters, focusing upon the implications for public service professionals and volunteers such as those involved with Law Centres.

As the previous section has already summarised, New Right governments promoted policies to roll back the state with a view to enabling the market to operate more effectively, arguing that this offered individuals and their families more choice. Welfare provision was to be determined on the basis of rational consumer choices rather than being determined by paternalistic professionals and public sector bureaucrats deciding what was best for people – the ‘nanny state’. Through the introduction of market mechanisms – ‘quasi- markets’ as Le Grand and colleagues initially characterised the processes by which ‘monopolistic state providers’ were to be replaced with ‘competitive independent ones’ (Le Grand and Bartlett, 1993. 10) - welfare provision was to be transformed.

The key questions to be addressed, it was argued, were whether these changes would result in greater efficiency and cost savings or would they prevent sensible planning and lead to other forms of waste? Would the changes make services more responsive to clients or would they distort the relationships between users and providers, distorting relationships based on trust with ‘suspicious commercialism’? (Ibid. 11). And would the changes serve the interests of the poor and those in need rather than simply creating ‘two-tier services that discriminate against and perhaps stigmatise, the most vulnerable people in our society?’ (Ibid. 11). The answers, it was suggested, could depend on a number of factors including: the market structure (whether there was genuine competition); the transaction costs; the level of information available - both to providers and to service users; and the motivations of both purchasers and providers, since it was argued many of those working in welfare services not being ‘commercially or financially motivated and find it difficult to make the shift from considering, say, the welfare of their users to the financial state of their provider unit’ (Ibid. 31). These last two factors, particularly the information available to service users (including the information available about their rights and how to access these rights) and the motivations of those working in the public service sector, both emerge as major themes in the chapters that follow.

Meanwhile, as these questions continued to be debated, key elements of these approaches continued, although in differing forms, under New Labour governments (Esping Andersen et al, 2002, Whitfield, 2006), typically focusing upon increasing the use of market mechanisms rather than by privatising public services directly. According to Whitfield, marketisation works by commodifying services and labour, increasing the scope for competition, creating opportunities for markets to develop and restructuring

26 accountability mechanisms in public services (Whitfield, 2006). Central planning to meet social needs was to be replaced by planning via market forces, promoting competition amongst providers in the belief that they would respond to consumer preferences more appropriately and more cost effectively. Services were to be consumer led rather than producer led.

Whatever the rationale, critics have argued that the reality has been somewhat different. ‘Marketisation is a long-term strategy’ Whitfield opined, going on to argue that ‘New Labour is dressing up choice as empowerment. But the real power in marketisation is gained by transnational companies and consultancies which provide services and, slowly but surely, take over the ownership of key public assets’ (Whitfield, 2006). The implications for public sector employees, according to Whitfield, have included reductions in pay and conditions, including reductions in pensions. And they have included changes in organisation, management systems and structures as staff with private sector experience have been brought in to promote public service modernisation. Most importantly service users – and would-be service users - have been faced with the increasing risks and inequalities that emanate from the market, with losers as well as winners as a result. As subsequent chapters demonstrate, there have been serious implications for Law Centres, attempting to meet these increasing needs with tightening resources for the provision of legal aid.

Public Service modernisation

As Newman and Clarke and others have argued (Newman and Clarke, 2009) public services have important roles to be considered, not simply in terms of efficiency but also in terms of their roles in enhancing citizenship and social cohesion – although they could also have a dark controlling side. The New Public Management that had been particularly prevalent in the context of neoliberalism more generally, in the recent past, contained contradictions and ambiguities, leading to varying outcomes depending upon human agency and context. Like Whitfield, they pointed to the ways in which the state had actually been creating markets. As they went on to point out, this had been achieved directly, through privatisation, and less directly through the construction of internal markets, the separation of purchasers and providers and through processes of competitive tendering. Significantly too, they concluded, market mechanisms were becoming embedded within public services more generally, suggesting that ‘the binary distinction between state and market obscures the multiple ways in which markets, market-like mechanisms and market imagery have been deployed in reform programmes’ with the increase of market discourse (Newman and Clarke, 2009. 89).

Whilst the ‘New Managerialism’ that accompanied these developments had been complex and internally inconsistent in some ways, typical features had included the following: • ‘attention to outputs and performance, rather than inputs; • organizations being viewed as chains of low-trust relationships, linked by contracts or contractual type processes;

27 • the separation of purchaser and provider or client and contractor roles within formerly integrated processes or organizations; • breaking down large scale organizations and using competition to enable ‘exit’ or ‘choice’ by service users; • decentralization of budgetary and personal authority to managers’ (Clarke et al 1990. 6).

As Newman went on to point out in the same collection of essays, public service modernisation under New Labour governments differed from the New Right’s New Public Management discourse in a number of ways – with its own internal inconsistencies and potential contradictions. It continued the attack on ‘producer dominance’ , she argued, and it continued the aim of opening up more of the public sector to market mechanisms, just as it continued the emphasis on efficiency and performance and the search for business solutions to social and policy problems, in Newman’s judgement. But the discourse of public service modernisation under New Labour placed less emphasis on privatisation and competition per se, and greater emphasis on partnership working and democratic renewal. There was, in addition, despite the espoused interest in decentralisation and empowerment, greater emphasis on centrally imposed performance targets, ‘exerting tighter controls over activities previously the province of professional judgement’ (Newman, 2000. 51). These latter aspects emerge particularly strongly in subsequent chapters in relation to Law Centres.

Newman and Clarke and their colleagues highlighted such ambiguities, contradictions and internal tensions (Newman et al, 2009). It was important to understand these, they argued, in order to understand the scope for human agency, as public service professionals and administrators addressed the challenges of these developing agendas. As Barnes and Prior’s collection of essays on ‘Subversive Citizens’ (Barnes and Prior, 2009) similarly argues, ‘citizens are not “empty vessel waiting to be filled with the attitudes and potentialities prescribed for them by dominant discourses’ any more than professionals; both practitioners and citizens being active agents with the capacity for counter-agency (Barnes and Prior, 2009. 22). Subsequent chapters illustrate ways in which Law Centre staff and volunteers had been developing such counter strategies in response.

Professional ethos and values were indeed being challenged though and so were professionals’ relationships with clients. As T. H. Marshall had earlier recognised, these relationships were rooted in professionals’ ethical codes, based upon trust between professionals and their clients whilst ‘between buyer and seller there is not’ (that relationship of trust based upon professional codes of ethics) (Marshall, 1950. 133) – although he also recognised that the professions ‘have not always lived up to these high ideals’ (Ibid. 137) having also demonstrated the capacity for developing self- interested monopolies. The point, as Prior also argued, was absolutely not to present some romantic view of professionals’ counter-agency (Prior, 2009) but simply to identify the scope for contestation and oppositional consciousness, both amongst professionals and amongst those who use their

28 services, recognising the possibilities for alliances and shared strategies in the pursuit of common interests, including the pursuit of social justice agendas.

Subsequent chapters take up these themes, exploring the challenges to professional ethos and values and the strategies that have been developed in response. Chapter three focuses upon the ethos of Law Centres and the links with the motivations and values of Law Centres’ staff and volunteers. This sets the framework for the discussion of the challenges that they have faced and the ethical dilemmas that they have addressed as a result.

29 Chapter Two: Access to Justice, Law Centres and Pressures for Welfare Reform

As the previous chapter has outlined, access to justice emerged as a central question in earlier debates on the establishment of the Welfare State, illustrating the wider significance of these issues in the context of current debates on the future of welfare more widely. More specifically, the history of legal aid has been similarly linked (Sanderson and Sommerlad, 2011). As Geoffrey Bindman pointed out, in an article explaining ‘What Made me a Legal Aid Lawyer (Bindman, 2002): ‘(B)efore the Second World War access to legal services by those who could not afford to pay for them was largely dependent on charity’ (Bindman, 2002. 512). Whilst there was some provision for poor people to obtain representation in criminal cases, this was more limited in civil cases. Nor was there access to advice except where this was given on a voluntary basis. Pro bono help was provided by what were known as ‘poor men’s lawyers’ through Legal Aid societies. This was the situation that was to be addressed by the establishment of the Legal Aid Scheme in 1949. ‘A new dawn was promised’ Bindman explained (Bindman, 2002. 515), ‘in which equality before the law would be made real by the elimination of personal wealth in determining access to legal advice and representation’. Access to justice was recognised as a fundamental right, then, in parallel with the rights to education, healthcare and social security, through the establishment of the Welfare State more generally.

Building upon the Beveridge Report’s analysis, as the previous chapter explained, the post war settlement was to tackle the causes of poverty and related social problems comprehensively through universal services, provided as rights, rather than on the basis of individualised charity. T.H. Marshall’s concept of citizenship included these social rights, alongside political rights and obligations (Marshall, 1950). As he wrote, the civil element of citizenship was, in his view ‘composed of the rights necessary for individual freedom – liberty of the person, freedom of speech, thought and faith, the right to own property and to conclude valid contracts’ and ‘the right to justice’. And he continued ‘the last is of a different order from the others, because it is the right to defend and assert all one’s rights on terms of equality with others and by due process of law’ (Marshall, 1950, 10-11).

This point was emphasised by Sanderson and Sommerlad in their discussion of access to justice under New Labour governments. As they explain, not only are all other rights ultimately dependent on the right and ability to litigate on terms of equality with others ‘but the need of the disempowered for this right exceeds that of other citizens’. This was because in their view ‘poor people are more likely to get into trouble with the law, come into contact with state agencies, suffer violence and abuse, experience precarious and sometimes dangerous employment, live in poor quality housing and be exploited by, for instance, private landlords’ (Sanderson and Sommerland, 2011. 179). Civil justice problems are often linked to broader social, economic and health problems and power imbalances. And, as research has also demonstrated, ‘the poor are more likely to feel powerless and not entitled to take action’ (Ibid,

30 180). Access to justice, then, was a key plank of the Welfare State settlement, aiming as the Beveridge Report did, to tackle the causes of poverty and related social ills.

In practice, of course, the post-war settlement, in relation to legal aid, fell short of these aspirations, as did the rest of the Welfare State more generally. By the mid sixties, as the previous chapter explained, poverty was rediscovered, as a persistent challenge, along with the limitations of other aspects of the Welfare State. The limitations of legal aid were similarly exposed, in terms of the aspiration for equality of access to justice, regardless of the ability to pay (Abel-Smith, Zander and Brooke, 1973) - with housing and welfare problems as key areas of demand (reflecting, once again, the links with welfare policies and practices more generally).

This was the context in which the USA’s ‘War on Poverty’ inspired interest in Britain, demonstrating alternative approaches to tackling these persistent challenges (Marris and Rein, 1967). And similarly, in parallel, there was interest in exploring alternative approaches to the provision of legal aid through Law Centres, such as the model provided by neighbourhoods in some cities in the USA, described in the Society of Labour Lawyers’ pamphlet ‘Justice for All’, published in 1968. As Law Centres were to focus exclusively on the legal problems of poor people, they could offer an alternative mode of service delivery justifying the employment of salaried lawyers, rather than the legal aid model of paying private practice lawyers on a case by case basis for such cases as they undertook for clients financially eligible under the scheme. In theory this looked logical and attractive. If all the clients were eligible anyway, there was no point in the laborious process of sending individual approval applications to the legal aid authorities, and submitting invoices for the work done for each client.

In the event, however, the government of the day was not interested in setting up a network of such centres in Britain and it was left to more local initiatives. In 1970 the first Law Centre, relying on charitable funding, was set up in North Kensington, soon to be followed by Law Centres in Paddington, Islington and Camden, resourced with local authority funding. Although the Law Society was initially doubtful or even hostile, by the end of the 1970s, (with support from the then Lord Chancellor) accommodation had been reached and the Society came round to the view that far from being a threat, Law Centres were actually generating additional work for private practice (Smith, 1997). The total number of Law Centres rose to sixty two, at their peak, (with funding from a range of sources including inner-city regeneration initiatives, as well as some funding from central government for a limited number of centres). Law Centres were to close the gaps between the law and individuals and communities, especially individuals and communities in deprived areas, taking up test cases with wider implications and undertaking public legal education, as well as providing information and advice to individual clients. They were to provide specialist legal advice and representation in social welfare law, including welfare rights, disability rights, immigration and asylum, housing and homelessness, employment, community care and all forms of discrimination. While these areas of law were the most commonly provided, a smaller number of Law Centres also offered

31 advice in mental health, education rights and young people and children’s rights, depending on the local need for these particular services 1.

Legal services had never before been made available to the public outside the for-profit structure of private practices firms, and lawyers had only that structure within which to pursue their careers. Law Centres offered new vocational opportunities, typically organised on a collective basis, reflecting their commitment to democratic, participative values and ways of working. Chapter five explores these aspects of Law Centres in more detail.

The early days of relative independence for community Law Centres were closely linked, in many cases, to local community organisations and social movements, actively engaged in community work, as chapter three considers in more detail. These early days were succeeded by more challenging times, however. Funding had always been on the periphery, with low levels of local government funding and minimal direct central government funding. So as funding from these sources began to dry up, Law Centres started to operate the legal aid scheme, submitting applications for eligible clients and invoicing for the work, thus guaranteeing themselves a source of funding from the statutory scheme. But the costs of legal aid were growing, overall, and this became a matter of political concern, as part of wider pressures to contain public expenditure, more generally.

Although the growth in legal aid expenditure was actually far more pronounced in respect to private firms than it was for Law Centres (which were facing increasing competition from advice agencies as well as from the private sector), considerable proportions of their incomes were coming from legal aid casework by the 1990s. Even before the Carter Reforms Law Centres faced major challenges then, as governments focussed upon devising ways of managing costs and obtaining efficiency savings, including via competitive contracting processes. By this time a number of private practice firms had discovered that a reasonable living could be made concentrating almost exclusively on legally aided work, a far cry from the situation in the 1970s when legal aid had constituted a tiny proportion of the work of most more broadly based practices. To government, there was no logical distinction between these legal aid firms and legal aid dependent Law Centres.

The Carter Reforms

Having failed to contain costs effectively, (particularly the cost of criminal legal aid, rather than the cost of civil legal aid, incidentally) the New Labour Government commissioned Lord Carter to come up with proposals to gain more control over these costs. In the event it was the proposals that impacted on civil legal aid that became the focus for reform, rather than the more costly criminal legal aid costs.

1 http://www.lawcentres.org.uk/lawcentres/detail/what-do-law-centres-do/, last accessed 01.03.2012.

32 The Carter Report critiqued the way in which legal aid work was being administered and contracted and suggested that there was ‘scope for greater efficiency in the way that not for profit organisations deliver legal advice services’ (Lord Carter’s Review of Legal Aid Procurement 2006: 45). The previous model of funding, the report continued,

(…) may encourage inefficiency, as by paying for hours worked rather than cases completed it may encourage some caseworkers to spend more time on cases than is strictly necessary. This could mean fewer clients helped, and in an environment where ever more innovative means are being found to help more people access legal advice, it is essential that a good quality service is secured that provides maximum value for money (Lord Carter’s Report of Legal Aid Procurement: 45)

This report, which was endorsed by the Legal Services Commission (LSC), was followed by the introduction of the unified contract in 2007 – a new system by which Law Centres and other legal aid providers were to be contracted and paid. These contracts were to be awarded on the basis of competitive tendering processes for bulk contracts.

With the introduction of the unified contract payment was no longer based on the hours that were actually worked for particular cases but with fixed fees for different types of cases, calculated by the LSC itself. Specifically, the fixed fee scheme meant that the providers of legal advice, such as Law Centres, were being paid between £160 and £250 per case, depending on the area of law (employment, debt, welfare benefit, housing, etc.). There was provision for ‘exceptional’ cases to be paid at higher rates, but this only applied to cases that consumed more than three times the amount of time allowed for the regular fixed fee cases. As subsequent sections argue in more detail, this fixed fee system was very controversial, critics arguing that most of Law Centres’ cases that Law Centres fell between these two levels, requiring more time than the regular fixed fee allowed, but falling short of the requirements for payment at the higher ‘exceptional’ level .

The Carter Reforms – a ‘market-based approach to reform’ - have been described as exemplifying New Labour’s attempt to ‘reconcile a discourse of social justice with the techniques of New Public Management (NPM) and the parallel discourse of commitment to the citizen as a public consumer’ (Sanderson and Sommerlad, 2011, 178) – ‘nuanced to the point of self- contradiction’ (Ibid.183). In Baroness Helena Kennedy’s view ‘the so called reforms to legal aid served only to significantly weaken it’ (Kennedy, 2009. vi).

In summary then, government efforts to contain costs were to focus upon increasing marketisation (through the competitive tendering process) coupled with what has been described as the micro-management of legal aid transactions, through the administrative systems required by the commissioning agent, the Legal Services Commission (LSC). Advice was being measured in terms of what might be readily measurable - the volumes of advice units provided, rather than in terms of the impact on the lives of individuals in disadvantaged communities or the contribution of legal aid to

33 the promotion of access to justice more generally. Taken together then, the Carter Reforms combined neoliberal marketisation with New Public Management strategies – whilst still including public policy commitments to access to justice. The implications, it has been argued, were that ‘poor people’s problems could be worth only two or three hours of a paralegal’s time, and no more’, reducing legal aid to a ‘ sink service for people on means-tested benefits’ (Sanderson and Sommerlad, 2011. 194). This, the authors in question concluded, corresponded to Crouch’s characterisation of neoliberal reforms as involving the residualisation, distortion and degradation of public-sector services more generally (Crouch, 2011).

How then could Law Centres preserve their varied but distinctive contributions to the goal of access to justice for all, regardless of the ability to pay, in this increasingly challenging neoliberal climate? These distinctive contributions have been summarised (Smith, 1997) as including the following abilities to:

• reach minority communities (and open up access to legal careers to wider constituents in the process) • support effective campaigning for social justice, • take up issues of collective concern in communities • pursue test cases to challenge discrimination and • promote public legal education and preventative approaches more widely.

But none of these distinctive contributions were fundable, under the Carter Reforms which focused solely upon the funding of units of advice and directly related case work activities.

As Burdett’s study of Law Centres (Burdett, 2004) similarly demonstrated, such challenges could be located within broader challenges to the Welfare State more generally too. Were the next generations of staff and volunteers being formed in such different contexts that the public service ethos was at risk of being undermined? Was motivation increasingly pragmatic and individualistic, developing CVs rather than focusing upon campaigning for access to justice for all? These concerns formed part of wider processes of questioning about neoliberalism’s long-term impacts, including the impacts upon professionalism and professional values. Was the neoliberal emphasis upon individual choice empowering service users and driving public service modernisation, as successive governments claimed? Or was the very notion of ‘public value’ being undermined by these processes of marketisation, together with the public service ethos itself, posing new challenges for those concerned with professional ethics and values (Banks, 2004, Hoggett et al, 2009, Benington and Moore, 2010). What dilemmas were being posed, how were these being addressed, and at what costs, in terms of the emotional labour involved? (The issue of ‘emotional labour’ is explored more fully as an issue for Law Centre staff and volunteers in chapter eight).

The Law Society had already expressed concerns about the Carter proposals, before they were implemented, arguing that the fixed fee system would reduce

34 the supply of lawyers prepared to undertake legal aid work, encourage cherry picking (i.e. only taking on the cases that could be resolved most easily within the scheme’s time allocations) and impact most seriously on the most vulnerable clients (Law Society, 2006). Private lawyers also submitted critical responses to the LSC Consultation, as the following extract demonstrates, arguing that ‘the scheme you propose will prejudice vulnerable and disabled clients, especially those with mental difficulties, most of whom we represent, as their cases take longer to prepare….(it) will (also discriminate against clients from minority ethnic groups where language barriers often mean it takes twice as long to prepare and advise on their cases’ (quoted in Sanderson and Sommerlad, 2011, 188). It could, of course, be argued that “they would say that wouldn’t they”, since lawyers (sometimes described in the mass media as ‘fat cat lawyers’ profiting from legal aid) stood to lose out financially from the fixed fee system. But what about Law Centres that were not set up with the intention of making profits, in any case?

For Law Centres, the Carter proposals posed these challenges in very particular ways, as subsequent chapters explore in more detail. Would the introduction of the unified contract and fixed fee system undermine Law Centres’ abilities to meet clients’ needs within the allotted timeframes, taking account of the specific needs of particularly vulnerable clients in deprived areas, facing complex interrelated social welfare problems, exacerbated, in some cases, by language and/or other communication difficulties? Would the new system promote competition rather than collaboration between different providers within localities? Would there be less scope for holistic approaches, with reduced opportunities for more preventative work and public legal education? Would Law Centres’ outreach and community work be undermined, eroding the distinctive features that differentiated Law Centres from private practice? And would individuals and communities in disadvantaged areas be further disempowered, with even less chance of making their voices heard, as consumers (or would-be consumers) of diminishing public services, in the context of Welfare State modernisation?

Community Legal Advice Networks (CLACs) and Community Legal Advice Networks (CLANs)

While the Carter Reforms of 2007 have undoubtedly had far-reaching effects on Law Centres, there have been other changes too, impacting on the ways in which Law Centres have been operating. Even before the implementation of the Carter Reforms, after the publication of the consultation paper Making legal rights a reality in 2005, the Legal Services Commission had set out to pilot a scheme that aimed to develop partnerships among legal service providers. This scheme sought to build Community Legal Advice Centres (CLACs) in urban areas and Community Legal Advice Networks (CLANs) in rural areas in order to offer legal advice in more integrated and cost-effective ways. The LSC’s objective was that this ‘joined-up approach’ (LSC 2005) would be ‘run through a lead supplier’, who would then act as an interface with the LSC. This, so the consultation paper argued, ‘would reduce transaction costs on all sides and would allow the delegation of some LSC functions to the lead supplier’ (LSC 2005, 41).

Although the idea of collaborative working and creating partnerships had widely been received positively, there were concerns about the ways in which these CLACs and CLANs were to be implemented. A response to the consultation paper from the LSC (2005) from the Advice Services Alliance (ASA), - an umbrella organisation for independent advice networks in the UK consisting of 2,000 providers of advice, including Law Centres and CABs - critiqued the plans of the LSC for being inadequately researched and for lacking details on implementation and costs. The ASA further questioned the LSC proposal for not including immigration and asylum law within social welfare law. The main concern put forward by the ASA, however, was that the top-down approach to the implementation of CLACs failed to take into appropriate consideration the strong community links and local knowledge of existing providers. There were fears that many advice agencies might ‘go up the wall or survive in subsistence form’ (ASA 2009: 76), as Hynes and Robins put it, if they were not included in the advice centre or network. In short, whilst there were already ambitions to develop joined-up approaches to the provision of legal advice, there were also major concerns. In the view of Hynes and Robson, for example: ‘The CLAC initiative combines the best and worst of recent policy thinking on legal aid. The central idea to have better local planning of services is right but the project appears to be compromised by a crude and divisive tendering process with little respect for the providers’ (Hynes and Robson, 2009. 75). Chapter six considers the issues involved in attempts to promote collaboration, in the face of increasing pressures for competition, in more detail.

More recent legislative proposals

The proposals for the introduction of CLACs and CLANs posed potentially significant challenges, then, although the major issues centred around the implementation of the Carter Reforms, when Law Centre staff and volunteers were first interviewed for this research. Since then, however, the policy context has been shifting rapidly, as the Coalition government has been developing its own proposals for further reform. In particular, the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill has potentially major implications for Law Centres’ future funding and viability, especially for those most reliant on legal aid funding. This is because the bill sets out to reduce the scope of legal aid as well as to change the eligibility criteria and the fee structure. In total, the Ministry of Justice expects to make savings of up to £350m from the current legal aid budget, which amounts to slightly above £2bn (MoJ 2010: 5, www.news.bbc.co.uk 2). (The legal aid budget of £2.146bn for the year 2009/2010 was comprised of £1.205bn for criminal legal aid and £0.941bn for civil legal aid (MoJ 2011c: 9)).

The most significant savings to the Legal Aid budget, as Cookson suggests, ‘will be made by changing the scope of Legal Aid by removing many cases from coverage’ (Cookson 2011: 72), accounting for an estimated £280 million

2 http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_9674000/9674331.stm, last accessed 04.03.2012.

36 (gross) or around 80% of the savings. While Criminal Legal Aid will remain available for those who ‘cannot afford to pay for their own representation’, civil legal aid is expected to be reduced considerably. In general, most areas of social welfare law are planned to be taken out of the scope of legal aid unless they are explicitly included as staying within scope. Specifically, the government plans to remove legal aid from employment advice (except in discrimination cases), from debt advice and aspects of housing law (except when someone’s home is at immediate risk), from welfare benefits advice, from immigration law (except in cases of detention), from divorce law and from school exclusion appeals as well as from clinical negligence and personal injury cases. The areas for which legal aid is expected to have continued funding are for asylum cases, mental health cases as well as for family law cases that involve domestic violence and forced marriage or child abduction (MoJ 2010, www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11741289). Apart from these changes to the scope of legal aid, the government has also proposed to introduce a means-tested contribution in legal aid cases resulting in those with assets of more than £1,000 having to pay at least £100 of their legal costs 3.

As already mentioned, as a result of these proposed changes to legal aid, it is estimated that ‘legal aid service providers would no longer provide approximately £280m worth of current legal aid services’ (MoJ 2011b: 11) or, put differently, ‘605,000 people might be affected, of whom an estimated 595,000 might no longer receive Legal Aid as a result of removing specified law categories from scope and around 10,000 might now pay contributions or be subject to higher contributions’ (MoJ 2011b: 11). A recent study from Cookson (King’s College London), claims, however, that a reduction of legal aid spending in areas such as social welfare and family law as well as clinical negligence (£240m or 85% of the Government’s proposed scope savings) may create considerable knock-on costs of £139m, which may amount to 42% of predicted savings. In other words, unintended knock-on costs caused by people seeking alternative advice, litigation or fee remissions for example, call the Government’s estimated savings from the legal aid budget into question.

While recent changes to legal aid have not yet crystallised in terms of their long-term consequences for Law Centres, the effects of the Carter Reforms, implemented in 2007, have already become apparent. The following chapters (chapter three and chapter four) explore the challenges that these changes were posing and the consequent dilemmas as these were being experienced by Law Centre workers and volunteers. Subsequent chapters then go on to explore specific themes in further detail, including the views of other stakeholders in face of these increasing challenges for the longer-term.

3 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11741289, last accessed 04.03.2012.

37 Chapter Three: Law Centres and their ethos and values

Ethics and the related notion of ‘ethos’ have been centrally important yet contentious topics in debates on professions, professionalism and the future of public welfare provision more generally. On the one hand, professionals have been presented (or at least presented themselves) as ‘knights in shining armour’(Le Grand, 2003). The most frequently cited traits that have been described as characterising professionals have been their membership of an organisation that promulgates ‘standards and/or ideals of behaviour’ and that ‘they publicly pledge themselves to render assistance to those in need and as a consequence have special responsibilities or duties not incumbent upon others who have not made this pledge’ to use their specialist knowledge and skills in such altruistic ways (Banks, 2004. 19). In summary then, professionals should not be motivated solely by the cash nexus, without regard to the relevant professional standards. Obvious examples include the commitment that lawyers should not obstruct the course of justice by continuing to pursue a case, if a wealthy corporate client were to admit their guilt to their lawyer, whilst continuing to protest their innocence in court.

Conversely, however, professionals have been presented as ‘knaves’, motivated by their own self-interest, operating restrictive practices for the benefit of service providers, rather than in the best interests of service users. According to those holding more cynical views, ‘professionals surround their work with an ideological covering. It is a ‘calling’, not merely a job’ professionals claim ‘carried out from high motives of altruism, of glory, or of moral, spiritual or aesthetic commitment, rather than for mundane gain’ (Collins, 1990). But these types of claims can be seen as rhetorical devices, it has been argued in response, justifying the use of professional power and privilege (Wilding, 1982). As chapter one has already suggested, there was evidence of such potentially negative views of public service professionals from the post war period onwards (and indeed before that too), negative views that were compounded by feminists and anti-racists, who were deeply critical of the paternalism and institutional racism that was too often displayed, in their view (Williams, 1989). In recent times, more general criticisms have been associated with the managerialism that was so prevalent from the late 1970s and with the drives for public service modernisation in subsequent years. As Page, for example, has argued New Labour was ‘sceptical of the claim that welfare professionals, motivated by a public service ethic, can be relied upon to develop high quality, cost efficient services without external monitoring’ (Page, 2007). Targets, performance monitoring and audits were required to control their potential for exhibiting more knavish behaviours in practice.

For the purposes of this study, the points to emphasise are simply these. Firstly, the issue of professional ethics has been contested, from varying perspectives. As with debates on ethics more generally, there have been competing approaches, based on differing theoretical underpinnings. In summary, approaches based upon Kantian principles have stressed the importance of absolute values as rules for guidance, such as the categorical imperative commitment to the interests of each individual client. Approaches

38 based upon utilitarian principles, in contrast, have started from the principle of the greatest good of the greatest number, implying that professionals need to balance the interests of individual clients and communities with the interests of society more widely (the type of arguments used, for example, to justify limiting the time that lawyers spend with any particular legal aid client, in order to ensure that as many clients as possible receive some form of service, however time restricted, as subsequent chapters consider in more detail).

As Banks and others have also pointed out, (Banks, 2004, Hugman, 2005) professional codes of ethics have varied from country to country as well as from profession to profession, over time. Professional codes may provide guidance, then, but not to the exclusion of the need for professional judgement - although Banks also notes that as codes become longer and more prescriptive, the room for trust and discretion gets narrower. This leads into the second point to be noted in relation to this study, the increasing interest in ‘virtue ethics’, in response to some of the challenges of the new managerialism (Banks and Gallagher, 2009). A virtue ethics framework, it has been argued ‘can provide an orientation to professional attitudes and actions that offers a welcome counter-weight to the current emphasis on obligation-based performance to externally defined principles, rules and standards’ (Banks and Gallagher, 2009. 49). Here the focus shifts away from targets and outputs, to emphasise, in contrast, the ‘virtues’ required of the professional in question, virtues such as professional wisdom, care, respectfulness, trustworthiness, justice, courage and integrity. The individual professional is defined as a moral agent within a community of practitioners who share a core moral purpose or service ideal (Banks and Gallagher, 2009).

Virtue ethics have their critics too. This is not at all to suggest that this type of approach is unproblematic let alone that it might provide unproblematic answers for professional practice. Ethical issues and dilemmas are arguably inherent in the exercise of professional judgement per se. Rather the point, for the purposes of this study, is simply to emphasise the tensions that virtue ethics highlight, and the potential conflicts for professionals in the current policy context.

The outcomes, meanwhile, remain to be seen. What Banks describes as the ‘new accountability’ upwards, has been associated with processes of deprofessionalisation, restricting the space for professional discretion and potentially threatening professional ethics more generally (Banks, 2004). But this is not the only view or indeed the only possible outcome. For some professionals, for example, the new professionalism could be associated with more effective uses of scarce resources and/or more responsive outcomes for service users. For others, these challenges need to be met by more professional entrepreneurialism, combining private sector approaches with public service ideals. Alternatively, professionals may respond, it has been argued, with reluctant conformity or by developing individual or collective forms of non-compliance or other forms of challenge (Banks, 2004, Hoggett et al, 2009). And finally, professionals may respond with what Banks has described as ‘principled quitting’, ‘jumping ship’ in order to retain personal integrity, when all other strategies seem to have failed (Banks, 2004).

39 Subsequent chapters provide illustrations of each of these types of response to the ethical issues and dilemmas posed by public service modernisation and more recent policy developments in relation to the provision of legal aid.

Ethics and Ethical issues and Dilemmas in Law Centres

The research set out to explore Law Centres’ particular ethos as the background against which to examine subsequent challenges, in the contemporary policy context. What were Law Centres setting out to do and in what ways did the services that they were offering differ from those offered by other providers? From the survey and the first round of interviews the research focussed upon the views of those who were involved in Law Centres, whether as paid staff, volunteers or management committee members/ trustees. These interviews were followed up, in the second round of interviews, with discussions with other stakeholders. How did other providers (including lawyers in private practice as well as those working in CABs and other advice agencies) perceive Law Centres’ ethos and particular contributions (their ‘unique selling points’)? And how were Law Centres being perceived by local authorities and other funders? In addition, the research team noted their own impressions, when visiting Law Centres, picking up on aspects of the ambiance, such as the warmth with which potential clients were greeted at the reception desk when they arrived. The first part of this chapter summarises the findings from the survey and the first round of interviews whilst the second part summarises the views of other stakeholders. Whilst the motivations of staff and volunteers are explored in more detail in chapter nine, both sections of this chapter include some reflections on motivations as these relate to the issues of ethos and values more generally.

Findings on motivations, ethos and values from the survey and the first round of interviews

The interviews with staff and with volunteers (including management committee members/ trustees) began by asking them how they themselves had come to be involved with the Law Centre. Typically both staff and volunteers replied by outlining their own underlying motivations as well as providing more specific information about the history of their involvement in particular Law Centres, including the personal histories of former clients who had gone on to become volunteers. There were, in addition, a few examples of volunteers who had subsequently moved on to paid work, having qualified as professional lawyers.

The survey had already indicated very broad agreement on the factors that were important in deciding to become involved in a Law Centre, whether as a member of staff, volunteer or member of the management committee/ trustee. The key factors were concerns with meeting community needs for legal services and concerns with addressing social justice issues (although there were some variations by age, younger people being also more likely to include references to the value of building their CVs gaining employment related knowledge, skills and experience, variations that are explored in more detail

40 in chapter eight). Typical comments, added in response to this question, included: ‘broadening access to quality advice’ and ‘access to justice for the most vulnerable in society’.

The first round of interviews enabled the issues raised in the survey to be covered in greater complexity and depth. Some of the longer established staff spoke of their motivations in terms of their personal and political values (typically these related to being engaged with or supportive of movements for rights and social justice even before joining the Law Centre). As one solicitor explained, her initial involvement with the Law Centre, over thirty years ago, had related to her commitment ‘as a socialist and anti-racist’. A more recently qualified solicitor made similar connections, explaining that his motivation to work in the Law Centre was his ‘politics, (his) belief in equality and social justice’. Another solicitor commented in similar vein, going on to add that ‘it’s not just a job’ and ‘I’ll do it anyway until my dying breath’.

People’s motivations are discussed in more detail in chapter eight, together with the ways in which some people’s motivations had been varying over time, in response to changing contexts. They brought values with them, and these values were themselves subject to modification in turn. In some cases commitments deepened, whilst in other cases there was some evidence of erosion, as people struggled with the dilemmas associated with the pressures of the Carter related changes. The point to emphasise here is simply this, though, that the motivations and values of those who were working and volunteering in Law Centres were clearly linked to Law Centres’ own ethos and values, whether as cause or effect – or both.

After the discussion of their motivations in becoming involved in the Law Centre respondents in the first round of interviews were invited to comment on the Law Centre’s own mission and ethos and what this actually meant to them. Most of those who were interviewed began to discuss this without any prompting, anyway. And there was widespread agreement about this, in general terms.

There was broad agreement, firstly, that the role of Law Centres was to facilitate access to justice for all, regardless of the ability to pay or of social position. It was about providing a ‘quality service... to the people who can’t access legal advice elsewhere’ was a typical comment. ‘There’s no one else that helps the people we help’ commented another Law Centre worker. ‘The Law Centre was there to ensure that ‘all sections of the community (have) access to the law’ as a trustee remarked in similar vein. ‘There’s no one else that helps the people we help’, commented a lawyer in a different Law Centre. ‘We want to provide a quality service... to the people who can’t access legal advice elsewhere’ as a solicitor in another Law Centre added, emphasising the important of quality provision.

Accessibility emerged in terms of locality and atmosphere, as well as in terms of financial accessibility. As the administrator in one Law Centre commented, the Law Centre that she managed was located in shop front premises in an area of high social need. People could call into the Law Centre when going about their daily business. Being physically accessible was seen as important

41 then. A number of Law Centres were similarly located nearby markets and local shops. It was also recognised in one city, however, that there could be cases where clients might prefer to go to a more anonymous central location (if clients were anxious to avoid relatives or neighbours learning that they were taking up issues of domestic violence for example). In this particular city, there were collaborative referral arrangements in place, however, so that this issue was being addressed. Issues of collaboration between different agencies are considered in more detail in chapter six.

Once clients had walked through the door, the atmosphere in Law Centres was also seen as important, being welcoming, ‘very approachable, informal’, ‘clients like this’ they feel confident, as a local volunteer explained. A volunteer in another Law Centre made similar comments about the atmosphere, describing the atmosphere as ‘so welcoming, so relaxed’, with very helpful staff on the reception desk who were ‘so polite’. If this hadn’t been the case, she continued ‘I wouldn’t have bothered to give my time. I feel valued’. We don’t patronise people’ as a lawyer in one Law Centre explained, adding that people could see this, ‘so we’ve built up a lot of trust’ over the years. People ‘know that we’re on their side’. As a management committee member/ trustee of a different Law Centre similarly commented, the Law Centre did have a particular ethos – committed to fighting for social justice, holding onto public service principles’. This chimes with the findings from earlier research, which identified that less socially advantaged groups tended to prefer to obtain legal advice from a ‘one-sided’ lawyer, i.e. a lawyer who could be trusted to be on the side of the less advantaged (Abel-Smith, Zander and Brooke, 1973).

A number also commented on the importance of the atmosphere within the Law Centre, in terms of team working and collective ways of working. As one young woman explained ‘I hadn’t worked in one (collective) before ... it was a bit weird at first’ going on to add that it wasn’t always comfortable. As others also commented, she went on to add that although it took some getting used to, it was positive to be treated with respect and to, ‘feel valued’ as part of the team. The experiences of working in such an atmosphere were contrasted with more negative experiences, in some cases, in the past – including negative experiences in private practice where the focus was on ‘money…‘you were there to make money for the boss’ as one lawyer saw this.

There were also a few reflections on more negative experiences in Law Centres, however. Several of those who were interviewed contrasted the atmosphere in their current Law Centre with atmospheres that they had encountered, when collectives had not worked effectively or harmoniously in other Law Centres in the past. As one respondent saw this, Law Centres were ‘special places, but they are only as special as the people in them. The ethos is constantly fragile and in need of what museum people call curation’…’keeping the flame burning. The little flame can flicker and blow out’ though. As he went on to explain, ‘one of the issues in terms of the fragility of the Law Centres is that the business case and the business realities are very different… clearly one pressure on the ethic or ethos is the need to make it pay, to make it sustainable and to establish business disciplines on the work of each lawyer’ – a balance that was increasingly difficult to manage, it was widely argued, as subsequent chapters illustrate in more detail. These issues about working

42 relationships between staff, team working and collective forms of organisation are explored in more detail in chapter five.

The Law Centres that were visited were generally very busy and sometimes working from unsuitable premises (with insufficient space for clients to speak with receptionists in privacy, for example). Some offices were clearly in need of redecoration, too. The contrast with the décors of the private sector firms that were visited could scarcely have been more striking. But generally, Law Centre clients were being greeted in warm and welcoming ways. Typically, there were toys available for children, together with a range of information about related services and community activities.

Holistic approaches

This relates to another aspect of Law Centres’ ethos that was frequently mentioned, the importance of treating clients’ problems holistically. At this point, some clarification may be helpful, as the term ‘holistic’ was being applied in two slightly different ways. When referring to an individual client, the term working ‘holistically’ implied addressing their differing problems and needs comprehensively. For example this might involve identifying the links between a client’s presenting issue such as the threat of eviction and consequent homelessness, and his or her underlying problems – such as problems with claiming welfare benefits, leading to debt and consequent rent arrears.

The term ‘holistic’ was also used to refer to collaboration between agencies, providing ‘holistic’ services so that clients could be referred on to specialist agencies, when appropriate for example. Chapter six provides more detailed discussion of this latter usage of the term, exploring the development of more holistic collaborative approaches between different agencies across particular localities, more generally. In this chapter, however, the focus is upon holistic approaches to working with individual clients.

‘We’re interested in the clients... they are at the centre of what we do’ explained the administrator of one Law Centre, for example, going on to add that ‘we deal with vulnerable people’ whose problems often overlapped. As a trustee in another Law Centre explained, the ethos was about providing ‘a seamless path’. Others referred more specifically to the potential overlap between mental health problems and disability discrimination problems for instance, or between benefits problems and rent arrears, or immigration problems and welfare benefits and housing problems. These types of problems needed time and patience to unravel and address. This was particularly so when clients also had mental health problems or language issues (needing an interpreter for instance) which meant that even more time and patience would be required. A number of those interviewed who had experience in private law firms suggested that Law Centres generally had far more patience, when working with very vulnerable clients. Law Centre staff would also recognise that recovering relatively small sums (the example cited was of £900 in a compensation case) could make a vast different to clients’ lives if they were

43 managing on a low income, even if such sums could seem trivial to private firms.

Other typical comments included similar reflections on the impact that Law Centres could make both for individuals’ lives and for communities. ‘Making a difference... allowing people to exercise their rights’. ‘When I’ve done a case (successfully) I’ve changed someone’s life’ an immigration solicitor commented. A number of staff (including the solicitor who made the last comment) had previous experience of working in the private sector and so drew comparisons between the ethos in each (whilst recognising, in many cases, that there were also individuals and firms that did share many of the Law Centres’ values, demonstrating this by providing pro bono advice sessions, for instance).

Collective and preventative approaches to taking up common issues in the pursuit of social justice

There were some variations in emphasis in relation to different aspects of Law Centres’ ethos, from those focussing upon prioritising collective, community benefits rather than simply focussing upon individual cases, those highlighting the importance of pressing the law itself forward to promote social justice, taking test cases to strengthen legal rights for all (one lawyer described himself as a ‘legal guerrilla fighter’) and/ or those emphasising community work in terms of public legal education and policy work, typically preventative work. ‘The essence for me personally, it’s about wider issues, to educate the local community and empower them (in relation to knowing and accessing their legal rights)’ as one person summarised this. The Law Centre was concerned to ‘empower people to do it for themselves’ a lawyer in another Law Centre similarly commented. Respondents provided a number of examples of both test cases and of outreach and community related work, including campaigning and public legal education.

One such example was that of a campaign with ‘Women in Prison’ which had generated a lot of work for a particular Law Centre. The campaign had been about trying to maintain inmates’ homes, whilst they were in prison serving short term sentences. This was seen as being very important in ensuring that they had somewhere to go to, on release. Some achievements had been made as a result of this campaign.

Other examples of policy work in the past (in other Law Centres) had included taking up the problem that homeless people had been unable to make contact outside office hours, even if they needed emergency accommodation. The Law Centre had persuaded the council in question to provide a 24 hour helpline. Another example was that the council had not been giving written reasons for refusing homeless people accommodation. But without written reasons it was very difficult to appeal such a decision. This policy had also been successfully challenged and changed. But there was little if any time for this type of policy work, under the current system, this particular worker added.

44 Examples of test cases included a case that had gone to the European Court in Strasbourg. This was a test case about immigration rules, as these applied to a refugee who had temporary status but didn’t yet have settled status. If that person married outside the country before getting settled status they could be refused the right of entry for their spouse. This was challenged as a violation of human rights. The Law Centre lawyer involved in this explained that for him such cases were about ‘pushing the law to the boundaries’ in the interests of justice. He went on to give another example of a case that he had been taking forward to push the boundaries. This was in relation to degrading treatment or torture, as applied to a Roma child with disabilities and his/her access to appropriate education. At the tribunal the argument that this case involved degrading treatment had been accepted, in addition to the argument that this also involved the rights of the child. The lawyer explained that he had had the time and space to take this case effectively at that time – and such opportunities were what ‘really motivates’ he added.

An example from another Law Centre was one which lasted for 8 years, from the mid 1980s to 1992, ending up in the European Court. This forced a change in the law to clarify that the dismissal of a pregnant woman did indeed constitute sex discrimination.

These were precisely the types of approach that fitted least appropriately with the Legal Services Commission funding system, as a number of respondents pointed out, however. ‘It’s very hard to keep that initial ethos of the Law Centres going’ whilst meeting these targets, a lawyer explained. They needed to organise campaigning but there was no time to do this, he continued. ‘Even the simplest campaign would be difficult now’. Such experiences of pressures, and their impact on staff motivation, are explored in more detail in subsequent chapters.

Law Centres’ ethos - other stakeholders’ perspectives

Meanwhile, how far were the claims that were being made by Law Centre staff and volunteers being re-iterated by other stakeholders? There was broad agreement across other advice agencies, private sector providers, local authorities and other funders that Law Centres were making vital contributions in terms of enabling people to have access to justice, regardless of the lack of ability to pay, or other social disadvantages. The Law Centre was about ‘promoting equality, justice, access and fairness for people who wouldn’t normally get access to legal advice and support’ an advice worker in an ethnic minority community project reflected in one city, for example. ‘Strongly value led’ agreed an advice agency manager in another city ‘with a strong fairness agenda’ and ethical base that had impacted upon decisions taken in her own agency (such as the decision that representing landlords or employers would be in conflict with the commitment to work with tenants and employees).

Law Centres were seen as being ‘unequivocally there for the disadvantaged’ in the view of an advice worker from another agency who went on to comment that ‘the respect that local community groups have for the Law Centre is huge’,

45 mentioning the Somali community and the Polish community, as examples. ‘They want to help the most vulnerable’ commented an advice worker about the Law Centre in a different city, going on to point out that around two-thirds of the clients came from areas that were amongst the 20% most deprived areas in England. ‘The uniqueness of the Law Centre is that it is actually accessible to all’ reflected an advice worker in a different area again. And ‘because it is a community based organisation you see all sorts of people there. People can be intimidated by independent solicitors’ she continued ‘because they dress, they have a certain attire …whereas the Law Centre’s a lot more relaxed and (you can) express yourself a little bit more, being in that environment does make a difference’. The atmosphere was ‘less formal and less intimidating than many private lawyers’ offices’ a lawyer providing pro bono advice sessions reflected in similar vein. ‘It’s in a different style of seeing people’ which made the Law Centre seem more accessible in her view.

A former client explained how important this had all been to her, particularly commenting on the support she had received. ‘You know it’s just warmth in there’ going on to describe the sense of not being alone anymore, after the first appointment. She had been in what she described as ‘buckets of tears’, but felt that she had been listened to with great sympathy, as well as with professionalism. She did add that ‘I don’t think the building is actually appropriate’ (being in need of decoration and repair in her view) but this in no way detracted from the warmth ‘from the time you know you hit the door …you could sense the warmth of the individuals in there’.

The relatively informal atmosphere in Law Centres was in no way associated with a lack of professionalism, it was argued more widely too. As an officer based in a funding agency commented’ ‘personally I value Law Centres very highly. I think the services they provide are amazing’. Other stakeholders similarly commented on the quality of the services that Law Centres were providing. As an officer of another funding agency commented, in his experience Law Centres were getting very high success rates, pursuing cases ‘in order to win them for people that need this rather than to earn money from the legal aid system’. ‘At their best they’re excellent’ he added. Other stakeholders, including stakeholders in private practice, referred to their confidence in referring clients to their local Law Centre (issues of collaboration that are considered in more detail in chapter six).

Stakeholders also commented on some of the challenges presented by Law Centre clients, many of whom required considerable time and patience, to unravel their problems. An officer from a funding agency (with very considerable personal experience of Law Centres) emphasised this preparedness ‘to spend time with clients, giving them that extra time and attention that makes them feel valued’, enabling their often related problems to be unpicked. As a lawyer providing pro bono advice sessions commented in similar vein, clients typically required more support, often being less articulate than her clients in private practice, many of them having English as a second language. An advice worker in an agency that collaborated closely with their local Law Centre similarly commented on the particular needs of both their client groups. ‘We are there for the people who don’t manage’ adding that this was a very ‘needy group’. Whilst the aim was to empower

46 them and to ‘work to promote independence’ realistically this wasn’t always possible, she added.

Comparisons and contrasts with the ethos and values typical of the private sector

This willingness to give clients the time and attention required to address their issues holistically was contrasted with the ethos in many private sector firms. They tended to be less patient, it was suggested, and particularly so in terms of tolerating challenging behaviours from clients with mental health and/or alcohol or substance abuse issues for instance. As a local councillor who had a background in private legal practice herself commented ‘I can’t tell you how different I think the two environments are’ going on to explain that she had left private practice because ‘the underlying driver in a city firm is inevitably money’ (although she added that there were, of course, private firms that provided pro bono legal advice).

There were a number of similar comments contrasting the ethos in Law Centres with the ethos in private firms. And these included comments about the quality of the services that were being provided by some private firms, in some localities, in particular areas of law. There was one exception however, a comment from a lawyer with experience of both private and not for profit sectors. She considered that clients were better treated, as ‘a valuable commodity’: ‘the whole level of courtesy is higher in private practice’ in comparison with not-for-profit organisations which tended to keep clients waiting if there was a queue. She went on to point out that although it was important to listen to clients carefully and respond holistically, it was important to ask very focused questions and use time efficiently to get to the heart of the problem.

The benefits of Law Centres’ local knowledge and policy inputs

In addition to the ways in which they treated individual clients, Law Centres’ community base was also seen as important factor, another of their unique selling points. ‘They have grassroots knowledge, which is a key to our local Law Centre’ as an advice worker in another city commented. This local community base was also valued by a number of local authority officers who commented on Law Centres’ capacities to contribute to policy development, as a result. As one senior officer reflected, Law Centres could play an important role in improving decision making more generally. Through feedback from clients they could identify areas where administrative procedures were inadequate, for instance, providing valuable feedback. More systematic feedback, in his view, could strengthen effective, outcomes-based accountability. Both the leader of the council and the chief executive were interested in promoting such objectives, he added.

Very similar comments were made by local authority officers in other areas, expressing appreciation of Law Centres that were providing up to the minute feedback on problems as these were arising for clients in communities. In one

47 area the Law Centre was described as ‘one of our strongest partners’ for instance, bringing clients’ perspectives to strategic policy discussions, the perspectives of people who were experiencing poverty (which was seen as particularly important given that the area in question had high levels of poverty and deprivation, and the problems were spreading to affect previously less affected groups, as the recession was beginning to bite). Other examples of policy inputs included a review of homelessness in one city, jointly carried out between the CAB and the Law Centre, each focussing upon their particular areas of expertise. There had been a challenge to local authorities hiving off old people’s homes to private providers, in another area, a challenge that had initially been successful, although it was subsequently lost at the final appeal stage.

There was also some appreciation of the fact that Law Centres and local authorities could and did find themselves in conflict over particular issues and cases. But this was not a reason for not funding Law Centres – on the contrary. As one local authority officer reflected, at the back of officers’ minds was the question ‘why should I be paying you to sue me? It makes no sense in the short term’. He went on to add that in the longer term, however, like complaints procedures in the private sector, this was ‘essential and integral. You learn from the challenges, those litigations, so it can help you improve your services, ensuring that those issues that have arisen do not arise again. It is more cost effective’. As an officer in another local authority reflected, the independence of Law Centres was important, within the wider context of the independent role of the Third Sector, being separate from the local state and therefore being able to act against it, if need be, in the interests of clients / local people. Whilst a number of local authorities clearly shared these views, though, this was certainly not universally the case, as chapter six considers in more detail.

Preventative approaches as part of Law Centres’ original social justice mission

There was widespread agreement over the potential importance of Law Centres’ preventative work more generally. As a local councillor commented, the local Law Centre in her area included work with families to avoid homelessness. This was to the benefit of the council (not having to pick up the tab) as well as benefiting the families themselves. The Law Centre in the area also had a specific contract with the key social landlord in the area, to do preventative work. As a result of regular meetings with officers, to identify problems and seek solutions as problems arose, the number of evictions reduced from around 300 cases pa to around 50 cases pa. Rent arrears had been going down and tenant satisfaction scores had been going up. This was in ‘everyone’s interest’ being cost effective as well as being effective in social terms.

This councillor went on to refer to the value of preventative work around education, challenging school exclusions. She pointed out that young people excluded from school were disproportionately at risk of unemployment and

48 indeed of prison. Challenging unnecessary exclusions was therefore beneficial for society as well as for the young people concerned and their families.

An employment lawyer who provided pro bono advice sessions at another Law Centre added that preventative work was being done in another sense, preventing tribunals from becoming clogged up. This was because, far from encouraging unrealistic claims, Law Centre staff gave clients very realistic advice, advising them not to pursue claims that were very unlikely to succeed. In this way Law Centres were contributing to the reduction of the work of tribunals. More generally (not specifically referring to employment law), a number of those interviewed also commented on the problems to be anticipated if fewer clients were to be represented and so decided to represent themselves. Magistrates and tribunal chairs typically much preferred clients to be represented as this enabled cases to be heard more expeditiously.

But as Law Centre staff and volunteers had noted, under LSC funding systems, there was less scope for preventive work, or for policy work, community work or public legal education – unless funding could be obtained via separate sources. There were some fictions about Law Centres’ wider role which ‘wasn’t as prevalent as it should be’ as one lawyer put this. Whilst the Law Centre had had a high profile in terms of campaigning on homelessness policies and procedures, dampness and racial harassment in the past, a local authority officer commented, in similar vein, this wasn’t necessarily so evident in the current context.

Similar points were made about Law Centres’ wider roles in terms of public legal education and training, community outreach work and capacity building as well as being made about their contributions, taking up test cases. Here too some of the public legal education and training work that was going on was being facilitated as a result of separate project funding. Otherwise, in the view of a senior advice worker, reflecting upon her knowledge of a number of Law Centres, they had ‘shifted away from this’ because of the pressures of the funding system for legal aid, even if they still espoused this wider role in principle. Stakeholders certainly referred to examples of test cases that had been brought in the past, as the previous section illustrates. In one area, the Law Centre was described as still taking a number of test cases each year too. But there were generally few examples of more current work being cited in this field.

The interviews with staff and volunteers had already identified similar anxieties about a possible loss of vision, with fears that Law Centres might be drifting away from their original mission in their struggles to meet the requirements of the current funding system. ‘It’s very very hard’, commented a solicitor, ‘I think in terms of (being) an employee it really demotivated me …there is less satisfaction in the work we do, it’s impersonal, it’s rushed …it’s quite monotonous.. we had to move away from perhaps more complicated work where we could try and change policy with local authorities’ she added, going on to give an example of preventative work on tenants’ housing issues. ‘You know you want to help people’ she continued, ‘you want to help the community, you are there because you don’t want to make profit like a private

49 firm, you want to make a difference and it seems that the government is trying to squeeze that out of the community’. This particular solicitor was in the process of moving on from the Law Centre in question, to work for a different not-for-profit organisation. Which leads into the more detailed discussion of the changes that have been taking place, and the challenges that these changes have been posing for Law Centres’ ethos and values as a result – the subject of subsequent chapters.

50 Chapter Four: Challenges and dilemmas for Law Centre staff and volunteers, following the Carter Reforms

The previous chapter described Law Centres, their ethos and values, setting the context for the discussion of the impact of the Carter Reforms to legal aid, as set out in chapter two. This chapter moves on to explore the ways in which staff and volunteers experienced these changes, the challenges that were posed and the dilemmas that emerged as Law Centres responded. The first section discusses the evidence from the survey, which then leads into the discussion of the evidence that emerged from the interviews. As the final section points out, however, whilst the Carter reforms were the major focus of concern, during the first round of interviews, subsequent proposals for legislative changes to legal aid became a more immediate focus for concern, in the latter stages of the research, with the threat to so much of legal aid funding, as this related to the work of Law Centres. Subsequent chapters explore the challenges and dilemmas that were being exacerbated, as a result, in further detail.

Findings from the survey

The survey was designed not only to identify the motivations of Law Centre staff and volunteers but also to identify the issues that were posing any challenges for them, issues that would then be explored in more depth via the semi-structured interviews to follow. There were questions focussing upon issues that had already been identified as potentially challenging as a result of previous research including the issues that had been raised through the Consultation process prior to the enactment of the Carter Reforms. The survey invited respondents to score such issues in terms of their potential importance or lack of importance, on the basis of their own experiences. There were, in addition, spaces for open-ended comments. Appendix 1 provides a copy of the questionnaire.

The questions about what were the current issues in Law Centres produced high levels of agreement, as it turned out. The first question asked was about the impact of standardised fixed fees. 72% strongly agreed with the view that standardised fees underfunded the complex debt, housing, employment, education, mental health and community care cases that Law Centres focused on, with a further 16% in broad agreement with this view.

Table 2: Standardised fixed fees underfund the complex debt, housing, employment, education, mental health and community care cases that Law Centres focus on. Frequency Percent strongly agree 79 73.8% broadly agree 17 15.9% broadly disagree 1 0.9% strongly disagree 2 1.9% don't know 2 1.9% Missing 6 5.6% Total 107 100%

Almost two thirds (65%) also strongly agreed with the view that the unified contract system was placing increased administrative burdens on Law Centres, with a further 21% in broad agreement.

There was strong (although slightly less strong agreement) about the view that the scheme potentially fostered competition between local providers, putting at risk longstanding partnerships and collaborative ways of working. Just under half (49%) strongly agreed, with a further 32% in broad agreement. Whilst there was evidence of anxiety on this score, others were less concerned about this as a potential threat. The issue is taken up subsequently and developed in chapter six which explores the strategies for collaboration and partnership working that were being taken forward as part of survival plans for Law Centres for the future.

The pattern was relatively similar when it came to the issue of cherry picking (i.e. prioritising cases that would fit most readily with the fixed fee funding system) 47% strongly agreeing that this was a risk, and a further 35% in broad agreement. Here too, there were comments pointing to the ways in which some Law Centres were taking action to avoid cherry picking cases.

Finally, 65% of the respondents strongly agreed with the view that preventative work, including public legal education, policy and advocacy work was being put at risk, with a further 22% in broad agreement.

Table 3: Wi th the introduction of fixed fees preventative work - including education work, policy work and advocacy – has been put at risk. Frequency Percent strongly agree 71 66.4% broadly agree 24 22.4% broadly disagree 1 0.9% strongly disagree 3 2.8% don't know 2 1.9% Missing 6 5.6% Total 107 100%

Respondents were then asked if there were any other issues for Law Centres as a result of the introduction of the unified contract. In total just under two thirds (63%) thought that there were. Overall, though, most of the comments that were added here related more or less directly to the issues that had already been flagged up, amplifying points that had previously been raised rather than identifying entirely different issues.

The following comments (that were written onto the questionnaires, in the spaces provided for comments) provide further illustrations. ‘Payment at the end of a case and the fixed fees system has eroded reserves, putting the survival of the Law Centre at threat, causing de-motivation within staff and in fact staff losses and cuts in terms and conditions’ according to one respondent. ‘Not drawing down enough funding to cover costs and salaries’ added another.

The ways in which the unified contract operated were cited here, as well as the financial impacts of the fixed fees system. One respondent wrote as follows: ‘Feel worn down by the bureaucracy of casework. Like being on a treadmill’. ‘LSC issues very frustrating – reduces motivation’, added another. ‘Hitting targets becomes a big driving factor even though I don’t like this aspect of my job’, wrote a third. ‘The emphasis has to be on maximising income, by meeting individual targets. This narrows what one can do. The workplace has become more pressurised. There is much less opportunity to provide a holistic service’.

‘Pressures to close cases prematurely’ wrote a different respondent. ‘Law Centres waste time and money due to LSC administrative incompetence/ bureaucracy’, added another. Ultimately clients will suffer as they will effectively be deprived of access to justice, most clients are vulnerable and poor’ reflected yet another. ‘Generally the measure of success has become driven by achievement of targets rather than benefits to clients. This is

53 demoralising and can be divisive to the staff team’, was the verdict of a different respondent, summarising their views on the impact of public service modernisation as exemplified by the Carter Reforms. As another respondent put this ‘it emphasises targets and, as has been evidenced in other services, it is possible to meet targets whilst providing a service that serves no-one adequately’.

Broadly these findings were consistent with many of the concerns that had been identified in the literature review, focussing upon the changes that had been accompanying the introduction of the Carter Reforms and the administrative systems involved in Legal Services Commission supported provision, since then. The responses were by no means unanimous, however. For example, as already mentioned, there were some differing views on the extent to which collaborative work and partnership working was being put at risk (The interviews subsequently provided evidence that this risk had not actually materialised in some cases: there were examples where increased partnership working had been developed between Law Centres, other advice agencies and other service providers, as chapter six discusses in more detail).

There were also comments that indicated that Law Centres should not attribute all their problems to the LSC though. ‘I think it is mistaken to attribute all our ills to the LSC’, this respondent commented, going on to refer to reductions in other funding sources and concluding that it was ‘partly also Law Centres’ failure to adapt our mission and message to modern conditions’. The interviews provided fuller evidence on this topic too, including reflections on some of the dilemmas inherent in managing the potential tensions between modernising and becoming more business-like on the one hand and fears of the possible loss of mission, on the other, as subsequent chapters explore in more detail.

Findings from the semi-structured interviews

This brings the discussion onto the challenges that were identified from the first round of interviews, in relation to Law Centres’ ethos, particular contributions and specific ways of working. In summary, like the comments from the survey, the reflections from these interviews typically focussed upon the challenges inherent in the Carter Reforms’ fixed fees system itself and its operation. Whilst these challenges were at the forefront of the minds of so many of those interviewed, a number also referred to other factors too, including the rising demand for legal advice, as a result of increasing indebtedness and as a result of changes in public policies such as those relating to social welfare law and immigration. It should also be emphasised yet again that by the time that the second round of interviews were being carried out, there was far less discussion of the impact of the Carter Reforms (although some of those interviewed did indeed comment on these). More generally however, the focus had shifted, as Law Centres and other stakeholders faced the potential challenges of new legislation that would remove a number of key areas of the law from the scope of legal aid.

Specific challenges relating to the Carter Reforms

As with the survey responses, a number of those interviewed (including those with financial /administrative responsibilities) emphasised that the fixed fees did not cover the real cost of much if not most of the casework. As a respondent explained, whilst exceptional cases did qualify for a higher rate, most of their cases fell in between the basic and the exceptional case categories. This point was made by others, from different Law Centres too. The then-current LSC contract paid a fixed fee for all cases, equivalent to around 4.5 hours in employment cases. If the actual cost of a case reached three times the fixed fee, then it moved into a different charging regime, becoming an ‘exceptional’ case. The mix needed to make the contract financially viable did not necessarily match the mix of issues being presented by clients in need of help, however, and if there was such a mismatch the whole contract could be at risk. As a result, there were pressures to focus upon particular types of cases, either the simplest or the most complex. This put the squeeze on the middle level cases such as homelessness reviews, it was argued.

The LSC was clear that there shouldn’t be ‘cherry picking’ of cases, to take account of these pressures, as an administrator in a different Law Centre reflected. But in practice Law Centres were finding it very difficult to handle all potential cases. So, for example, the employment lawyer in one Law Centre commented that they couldn’t handle employment discrimination cases as these tended to take too long. The Law Centre did try to get a balance of cases but was ‘torn between the devil and the deep blue sea’. There were felt to be pressures for a quick turn around on the one hand versus the pressures of community needs on the other, (including the need for test cases to be taken up).

As a respondent from another Law Centre commented the ethos was such that there was great reluctance to turn people away ‘particularly because we don’t get enough money out of their case’ which ‘would be an awful reason to turn someone away’. The system was effectively turning Law Centres into behaving ‘much more like a private firm’, ‘having to be much more strategic about the cases we take on’ as a result, though, potentially leaving a whole raft of people without effective access to justice, according to this particular respondent. There were similar comments from the administrator of a different Law Centre, reflecting that they had needed to work ‘smarter’, in order to meet the challenges of the funding system for legal aid. Staff with experience of private practice had been able to provide advice and support here, being more aware of and used to private sector approaches in general and to time management and recording more specifically.

As an officer from a funding agency commented, Law Centres’ preparedness and effectiveness in pursuing cases, ‘taking cases in order to win them for people that need this rather than to earn money from the legal aid system’ was, ironically, one of the reasons for Law Centres’ financial problems, one of the reasons why they were threatened with going broke – because this wasn’t

55 the most effective way to get the most money from legal aid in his view. The system of cost per case was riddled with perverse incentives, he concluded.

Meanwhile, others pointed out that the fixed fee system was also problematic, in terms of the lack of provision for maintaining and renewing overheads, such as computing equipment. In several Law Centres, this lack of up to date equipment was evident, adding to the administrative pressures on staff, accordingly. This was particularly difficult to manage, as the Legal Services Commission’s administrative requirements were seen as complex and frequently changing – an issue that was frequently cited as presenting challenges for Law Centre staff. A trustee in another Law Centre commented in similar vein. She went on a half day training course for trustees, but still found it very complicated, in practice, as did the staff, she explained (despite having extensive previous experience as a manager in other public service sector agencies). The new administrative requirements were complex, and the computer system very difficult, and quotas kept changing, from month to month. It was very difficult to predict your income, on such a basis, in her view. And the financial arrangements were very unsatisfactory in other ways too. All in all, it was very difficult to plan as income varied from month to month. There were also problems with the process of bidding for the new contract. The term ‘Byzantine’ was used by another of those interviewed when describing the contracting process more generally, although this was not the view of the LSC itself.

From the LSC’s perspective, the administrative requirements could be experienced as challenging, but they were actually no more so, and possibly rather less so than the requirements of other agencies managing government contracts. Some Law Centres had indeed experienced challenges in moving from the previous funding system to the fixed fee system. Had the requirements to become more ‘business-like’ posed tensions and dilemmas for them? Some Law Centres evidently had found this difficult. Some had not been adequately prepared. But this was the reality that had to be faced, if legal aid resources were to be used most cost effectively, to maximize the throughput of cases, reaching the maximum number of eligible clients. Law Centres needed to effectively manage themselves, as some were, just as some had been learning from the experiences of those who were succeeding in working with the fixed fees system. Financial incompetence was unacceptable. Arguments about the difficulty/ impossibility of operating viably within the fixed fee system, when working with diverse groups of clients didn’t stack up, given that some providers in diverse areas could operate viably within the fixed fee system, it was argued. For example, it was not necessary to use qualified lawyers for every type of case, and simpler cases could be handled by paralegal staff (working under legal supervision). This was more cost- effective. There was no overall shortage of those seeking to bid for tenders, indicating that the fixed fee system was not actually deterring potential providers, at least in urban areas, in the LSC’s view. The implication was then that Law Centres that were finding this all so difficult could usefully learn from the experiences of others who were successfully providing legal aid within the requirements of the fixed fee system.

56 As it has already been suggested, some of the LSC’s requirements were indeed being experienced as particularly challenging for those without any experience of working in the private sector, where practices such as detailed billing had been the norm. There was evidence that some staff were now applying previous experiences of working in private firms, including more business-like ways of organising and managing time, to their present work contexts in Law Centres. Chapter five examines this issue in further detail, identifying some of the dilemmas for Law Centres, striving to become more business-like but without losing sight of their mission and ethos.

Whilst some Law Centre staff and volunteers were evidently confident that they had worked out how to operate successfully within the LSC’s requirements, others expressed serious reservations however, including reservations about their independence as legal aid professionals. ‘The independence is sacrificed... the flexibility, the ability to work in the way that you want to a reasonable extent is an absolute prerequisite of the independence of a lawyer’ one lawyer argued. ‘A lawyer that has to say: “I can't do any more because my funder won't pay me any more” is not a lawyer who is independent. A lawyer who has to work on that case but not this aspect of it... if it's a debt aspect or if it's a benefit aspect, a housing aspect, an employment aspect and you do this and not that all because of the dictates of the funder, that's not an independent lawyer. That's not a proper public legal service and that's what (has) happened to community law’ this respondent concluded.

Law Centres that were less dependent upon LSC funding had been better placed to cope with these challenges, it was pointed out. But reductions in local authority expenditure were widely anticipated (local authorities having been significant funders for a number of Law Centres, as chapter two explained). There was likely to be increasing competition for funding, including funding from charitable trusts, and ‘every year the cake is getting smaller’ as one respondent put it. Meanwhile demand for services was increasing and was likely to increase further as a result of public policy changes such as the forthcoming changes to housing benefit (which were expected to lead to increasing problems with homelessness) and forthcoming changes in the benefits system, ‘It’s going to be chaotic’ was the view of a Law Centre advice worker, for instance.

Others added that the law had been becoming increasingly complex in any case, adding further challenges. This applied to a number of areas of the law including immigration. Rapid changes were also potentially posing challenges in terms of administrative decisions, according to some of those interviewed, linked to poor administrative decision making. As one lawyer suggested, spending on legal aid might be reduced simply by improving the quality of decision making in areas such as social welfare law and immigration law, as this would reduce the number of challenges to be made. Legal aid, in the view of another lawyer, was focussed upon going to court: ‘it is all about dealing with things that have gone wrong’. He contrasted this will the role that Law Centres ought to be playing, acting in more preventive ways - ‘not having to raise a grievance, but knowing your rights’ so that people could take these up in a self-confident and informed way. ‘If people are empowered at the front end of these processes then they don’t have to resort to litigation later’ he

57 added. This theme of the value of preventive and policy work is explored further in chapter seven.

As an officer from a funding agency argued, Law Centres were prepared to ‘spend time with clients’, ‘giving them that extra time and attention that makes them feel valued’, enabling their often linked/ complex problems to be unpicked. As he went on to point out, however, ‘legal aid doesn’t pay for this’ aspect of Law Centres’ approach – identifying and addressing clients’ problems holistically rather than taking each issue, separately, and as rapidly as possible. ‘At their best, they (Law Centres) change lives’ he explained, ‘they get people completely out of the hole that they’re in and mend them’. ‘They become self-sufficient, ceasing to cost the state money’.

A respondent from another Law Centre added that Law Centres’ clients tended to be disproportionately likely to be disadvantaged and vulnerable, re- enforcing the points that had already been made by the Law Society and other critics, responding to the Consultation on the Carter proposals, (points already raised in chapter two). Clients such as those with mental health issues often faced multiple problems and it could take some time to understand ‘what their problem really is’, teasing out the legal aspects from other aspects. ‘Most lawyers don’t want to work with them (these types of client)’, she added. The time and sensitivity needed to work effectively with very vulnerable clients emerged from other Law Centres too, along with a range of examples. Other factors involving the need to spend proportionately more time with some Law Centre clients included issues of language, as well as related cultural issues. In one Law Centre, for example, outreach sessions were being provided at a local community centre, in order to reach women from particular ethnic minority communities in ‘their own space’ where translation facilities were also available. These were precisely the types of activities that were not covered by the fixed fee system. Subsequent chapters explore these issues and the related dilemmas that they were posing for Law Centre staff and volunteers in more detail.

Exploring potential clients’ eligibility for legal aid under the fixed fees system was a similarly sensitive issue for a number of Law Centres. Some Law Centres preferred not to demand proof of eligibility from potential clients before they could be seen, even though this sometimes involved more work subsequently, in order to provide the relevant evidence for the LSC. Other Law Centres displayed prominent notices, explaining the need to bring evidence of eligibility. This was an issue that required sensitive handling though, if Law Centres’ reputations for accessibility were not to be undermined. As one administrative worker explained ‘I need to check people’s eligibility. I need to ask them to bring documents on their first visit... to prove... as some sort of proof of income’ which saves time, as clients don’t then have to return ‘or might not return with their documents’. ‘In a way it does make it more efficient’ she added, but at the risk of diverting from ‘the problem that arrives through the door’. She tried to be discreet, she explained, ‘to make sure that they don’t feel they are being judged in any way … but also I don’t always have the time to reassure them that if they don’t have the right income they will still be seen’ (this particular Law Centre having had funding from the local

58 authority which enabled staff to provide at least some advice, before filtering out those who didn’t fit the LSC criteria for eligibility).

A number of those interviewed also expressed concern about the potential clients whose incomes/ resources were such that they were just above the eligibility criteria. They would be unable to afford private solicitors, and so effectively denied access to justice, because of their inability to pay. Such concerns were likely to increase, it was pointed out, if legal aid were to become even more restricted, along the lines of the then-current government proposals.

Education, training and development

As chapter three has already explained, another of the particular distinguishing features of Law Centres, in the view of some respondents, was their ability to provide specialist services and to provide training for ‘first tier’ (i.e. front-line) advice agencies, working in partnership with and supporting agencies such as Citizens’ Advice Bureaux (CABs) who would refer such complex cases. But the funding system was not conducive to this type of approach either, it was argued. As an administrative worker summarised the situation in one Law Centre, they were ‘living hand to mouth’. Public legal education and training were amongst the aspects of the work that were getting squeezed, as a result of the pressures, although there were still collaborative relationships with the CAB (which had decided not to compete in bidding for contracts). And this Law Centre still managed to provide regular training sessions for referral agencies, to update them on changes in welfare law. As a member of staff in another Law Centre commented, it was essential to keep up to date, ‘to be at the cutting edge’, both for their own clients and to provide specialist advice to other agencies. But their internal training budget had suffered and there were reduced resources for training work with other agencies.

Law Centres’ roles in relation to the provision of opportunities for access to education and training also emerged as having been a potentially important more generally. Several respondents referred to the impact of the reduction of funding for providing training opportunities - which had been a means of increasing access to the legal profession. Some of the respondents illustrated the importance of these opportunities for training and progression through their own careers, (several having started as clients and/ or volunteers, going on to become trained as lawyers themselves). Whilst the numbers were very small, it did seem that these opportunities had been particularly helpful for members of ethnic minority communities. Several of those interviewed commented that without this support they would not have felt able to pursue a career in the law. Further examples of the importance of such opportunities emerge in chapter eight.

Whilst these types of comments about reductions in opportunities for education and training were made by a number of different respondents, it did, however, emerge that there were still examples of good practice, in these respects. Several of those interviewed referred to partnership working here,

59 collaborating with other advice agencies via workshops, for instance. There were examples of collaboration across particular cities, where Law Centres were providing specialist advice and supporting other front-line agencies, including in some cases, having cross referral agreements with some private firms of solicitors, the aim being to provide a comprehensive service. The Law Works Partnership (providing pro bono work via private solicitors) was referred to on a number of occasions in this context. In some cases, local authorities and other public agencies were involved here, supporting a holistic approach, as the most cost effective way of meeting citizens’ needs for legal services. And there were, in addition, examples of local authority officers referring issues to Law Centres, in collaborative ways. Chapter six addresses these aspects of Law Centres’ work and future strategies in more detail.

As it has already been suggested in chapter three, test cases were another part of a number of Law Centres’ missions that were potentially at risk. Test cases could be a means of clarifying the law and they could be taken further as a means of campaigning to change the law. These cases illustrate the ways in which Law Centres could and did take up test cases to challenge discrimination.

As a number of those interviewed pointed out, however, there was diminishing scope for taking up test cases at all. Taking up test cases ‘doesn’t sit so well’ in the current context. As the previous chapter has already argued, Law Centres’ remits were effectively narrowing, with less scope for preventative policy work or campaigning, either

Internal impacts

The administrative requirements related to the fixed fee system and the LSC’s targets were also impacting upon the ways in which Law Centres were organised and managed, including the roles and compositions of management committees/ boards of trustees (the name varied depending upon the particular arrangements in different Law Centres), it was suggested, in some cases. Whilst some management committees/ boards of trustees still retained community and user community representatives, others were less rooted in these ways. ‘It is a challenge to keep the community base whilst bringing in the expertise that we need’, as one community worker summarised this. Chapter five explores these impacts of the Carter Reforms in more detail, including the impacts in terms of redundancies as well as in terms of reductions in staff pay and conditions,

One particular effect of the administrative changes associated with the fixed fees system had been that a number of Law Centres that had originally been organised as collectives had found this unsustainable. In some cases, economies had been achieved by introducing differential pay scales. Professional managers had also been employed in a number of Law Centres, either to develop and manage systems to meet these administrative requirements jointly, alongside senior solicitors, or to become the overall sole manager of the Law Centre, in other cases. These aspects are also explored in more detail in chapter five.

60 Resulting tensions, dilemmas and stress

Both staff and management committee members provided illustrations of how stressful these changes actually were, though, in their experiences. Being in what felt like a ‘state of crisis’ was stressful in any event. People spoke of feeling trapped in the challenges of survival from day to day, without the time to focus upon longer term solutions. ‘We’re in a very very difficult situation’, reflected another respondent, facing possible closure. ‘I don’t want to work anywhere else; I want to work in this organisation’ he continued ‘But I’m obviously very very worried about the next three months’.

Insecurity emerged as a major source of stress then. As a young lawyer reflected, ‘this has to be a big problem.’ As a young person, she continued, ‘you think, could this job sustain me?’ Although she felt that she was getting excellent guidance and support and was very positive about working in the Law Centre, she went on to explain that ‘I’m worried about the future’. Others similarly pointed to what they identified as ‘worrying levels of stress’ as a result of these insecurities.

Long hours were also identified as a major issue. A lawyer spoke of the stress of working ‘on average of thirteen hours a day and at least one day at the weekend’, for instance, a situation that had led to her leaving the Law Centre. ‘We keep on going’ commented another, but this involved late nights in order to get the work done. ‘You can see cracks’ he added, referring to the fact that one of his colleagues was off work, due to stress.

Whilst so many of the stresses that loomed large in respondents’ minds related to the then-current funding context, however, it is relevant to recognise that these were not the only sources of tension. As already suggested, there were several examples of stresses that related to staffing issues, including conflicts within collectives (if collectives found it difficult to address performance issues, for example). And there were examples of challenges relating to conflicts of interest within and between communities as well as between staff, including issues where allegations of racism were involved. As in other studies, these have been some of the most painful issues to be addressed (Hoggett et al, 2009).

Chapter eight explores some of these issues in more depth, examining the stresses that were identified as a result of the challenges to be faced and the dilemmas that were being posed for Law Centre staff and volunteers. Subsequent chapters also reflect on the survival strategies that were being adopted as Law Centre staff and volunteers strove to safeguard access to justice for all – becoming more ‘business-like’ as a number of those interviewed expressed this - without jeopardising their underlying ethos and values.

Meanwhile, most of those interviewed in this first round of interviews, went on to reflect on a number of the forthcoming challenges and dilemmas that they anticipated, in the coming period. Law Centres were ‘going into difficult times’ involving ‘hard and difficult decisions’. A number of possible survival strategies were being proposed, many of which were highly contentious –

61 posing further ethical dilemmas for those involved. For example, various forms of charging for services had been identified as a possibility that might be explored with the Law Society. Whilst this might generate income, and provide relatively accessible services to those who were ineligible for legal aid but unable to afford a private solicitor, there were anxieties that ‘this might be when it starts undermining the principles. How far do you go down that road – who should pay and who should not pay?... There are so many tensions at the moment’, as one of those interviewed reflected.

Other possible options included developing partnership working with private solicitors (already established in some cases, in relation to pro bono work for instance, although in other areas there was a dearth of lawyers providing no pro bono services). Another option involved taking on ‘no win no fee work’ (although there were anxieties that this could lead to ‘ambulance chasing’). There was also some discussion of the possible option of setting up a trading arm, to take on for-profit work in the city centre, for example, in order to develop ways of cross subsidising the Law Centre’s main work elsewhere with disadvantaged communities. ‘I personally don’t think this would be a step too far’, one respondent commented, whilst recognising that ‘a lot of people would disagree with that’.

Others referred to potential practical difficulties, as well as raising more fundamental objections to such proposals in principle. At this point it should be emphasised again that Law Centres operate in very different contexts, covering both urban and rural areas, providing services across different aspects of the law. Potential solutions such as charging for some services, setting up a trading arm, developing partnerships with other agencies and with private solicitors, increasing the scope for pro bono work and increasing the use of volunteers, in partnership with local universities, may have been feasible to pursue in some contexts and simply impractical in others.

Whilst some of those interviewed expressed clear views, either for or against particular proposals, in principle, (rather than simply in practice) others were less decided. ‘We are open to anything’ to keep the Law Centre’ services going, it was suggested in one Law Centre, for example. If one or more of their particular areas of the law were taken out of funding then alternatives would have to be explored. The current uncertainty was ‘terribly draining though’, taking its toll on morale. But having expressed the willingness to be open to anything, specific reservations were also expressed. The Law Centre in question wouldn’t consider taking on cases for employers or landlords, for instance, as this would be seen as incompatible with the Law Centre’s ethos.

This summarises a number of dilemmas inherent in the current policy context, and not only for those involved with Law Centres but for those concerned with public services and the public service ethos more generally. A number of respondents discussed the varying ways in which they would reach decisions about such possible developments, how they would set about drawing their own personal bottom lines, balancing the need to be businesslike with the importance of holding onto their professional values and the Law Centres’ ethos. As one respondent (a trustee with extensive experience of public sector management across a range of different service

62 areas) also explained however, this sometimes felt like drawing lines in the sand, drawing parallels with the ways in which public attitudes had shifted over time more generally – the widespread acceptance of police officers carrying guns, now, for example. What had seemed unacceptable at one time could become the norm, subsequently, this respondent pointed out. There were continuing dilemmas here, involving emotional labour on an on-going basis, as subsequent chapters explore in more detail.

63 Chapters 5: Public service modernisation, restructuring and re-commodification

‘The shifting boundary between private and public responsibility for social welfare is one of the longue duree stories of Western history’, as a number of commentators have pointed out (Drakeford, 2008. 163). In summary, the shift towards greater public responsibility, following the Second World War met with a concerted check, following the election of the Thatcher government in 1979. The future was to be one of ‘customers not clients, purchasers not providers, managers not administrators, competition not allocation, regulation not planning and equality of opportunity not equality of outcome’ (Drakeford, 2008. 163).

New Labour, in contrast, came to power in 1997 with the promise of modernising the Welfare State rather than further privatising it. Yet public service modernisation policies continued aspects of neoliberal policies, it has already been argued, focusing upon increasing the role of market mechanisms, rather than promoting further privatisation per se – attempting to use social policy to complement rather than challenge market imperatives (Page, 2007). As chapter one has already pointed out, public service modernisation was also accompanied by the increasing use of performance targets and the promotion of private sector audit and management practices.

The impacts of these changes have included the restructuring of management and accountability systems, in order to meet the required targets in the most cost effective ways. As Whitfield and others have also pointed out, these forms of restructuring have typically impacted upon staff pay and conditions (Whitfield, 2006) potentially undermining staff morale. They have also been associated with the deskilling of professionals, reducing the scope for the use of professional judgement.

Whilst critics have pointed to the potentially negative implications for public service professionals and their clients, however, they have also pointed to the continuing scope for human agency (Newman and Clarke, 2008). Public service modernisation has been implemented in varying ways in different contexts. As Prior has also suggested, both professional practitioners and citizens have the capacity for counter-agency, as potentially ‘subversive citizens’ (Prior, 2009. 22). But counter-agency is not without its costs. ‘Managing the volatile intersection of needs, choices, resources and competing priorities will remain a site of intense emotional labour’ it has been argued (Clarke, Smith and Vidler, 206, p.159). How then did these debates apply to Law Centre staff and volunteers?

The Carter Reforms that were introduced in 2007, in contrast, set out to develop an explicitly market-based approach to reform. As chapter two has explained in more detail, this involved a system of competitive tendering for the provision of legal services, on a fixed fee basis, aiming to contain public expenditure by promoting cost effectiveness, taking account of the business

64 practices of the most competitive providers in the private sector. For Law Centres, these changes have posed major challenges.

Following the change of government in 2010, subsequent policies have been shifting the boundaries still further towards the private market, potentially exacerbating the tensions to be managed when public service provision becomes correspondingly reduced. This provides the context, then, within which to explore the impacts as these have been experienced by Law Centre staff and volunteers.

This chapter examines the impacts on Law Centres’ decision-making processes and structures and their accountability systems, as well as the impacts on staff pay and conditions in this more competitive climate. Flat organisational structures, including flat pay structures, collective decision- making processes and community representation have been under pressure, as staff and their management committees/ trustees have been facing increasing pressures. The chapter concludes by focusing upon the particular issue of whether - and if so how – Law Centres’ should charge clients for services, a controversial issue that in some ways epitomises the dilemmas that Law Centres have been facing, as they strive to survive in a competitive market, whilst maintaining their underlying ethos and social purpose.

The Carter Reforms and the new managerialism

The introduction of competitive tendering was accompanied by performance related targets, posing new challenges for Law Centres used to operating in very different ways, as the previous chapter outlined. As the chief executive of a partner agency reflected, in his view the LSC had ‘bought into New Labour’s performance management culture to an excessive degree’ losing sight of customer care in the process. ‘It just went mad’ he added, ‘with a macho culture which entirely lost sight of what the organisation was there to do’, at some levels within the organisation, although not at the top of the LSC, he continued, the leadership being committed to access to justice, in his view.

A number of those who were interviewed commented on the challenges involved not simply in bidding successfully for the LSC contracts but also in managing them. As one administrator reflected ‘we bent over backwards to get the new contract’ but ‘we must need our heads read’ adding that you are ‘stuffed if you do and stuffed if you don’t’ get the contracts. The fixed fee system was criticised for failing to cover the real costs involved, let alone covering overheads, such as renewing computer systems or updating legal resource materials. Nor did the fixed fee system cover Law Centres’ wider roles, providing public legal education, engaging in preventative policy work or taking test cases. Moreover the administrative requirements to claim for the case work that was eligible for payment were described as exacting. The monthly returns were ‘awful’ to complete, creating stress that one staff member described as ‘worse than PMT’.

As one management committee member summarised the situation, there was a need to be ‘businesslike’ whilst maintaining the public service ethos, striking

65 the balance, as another reflected, between ‘trying to deal with cases efficiently’ ‘getting the fixed fee system working’ ‘but not riding roughshod over clients’ to meet performance targets. ‘We can’t spend as much time with clients’ explained a solicitor in another Law Centre... trying to use your time more efficiently... trying to get more value for money for/from the work we are doing’. She went on to add that as a relatively young member of staff this hadn’t been so much of a culture shock, but the long-serving members of staff noticed that the Law Centre had gone ‘from being a provider of a social service, even though we are providing legal advice and being a charity in that sense, to being a business... seeing how much money we needed to make per individual group (of cases) and then per caseworker and then working backwards from that’.

A solicitor in a different Law Centre summarised the situation in a similar vein, explaining that she found it difficult not to be influenced by the question ‘is the case going to earn money’ when a client came in, adding that ‘it’s like seeing a pounds and pence sign over a client’s head’; although she hastened to add that this was absolutely not how they treated clients in that Law Centre which was still a very friendly and accessible place. A recurring theme was how to avoid undermining the mission by ‘operating like a production line’, a ‘factory approach’ as one Law Centre lawyer expressed this, in order to meet the Legal Services Commission’s requirements to obtain the maximum throughput of clients with less complex cases. But legal aid work was ‘not like Tesco’s – it’s not like selling baked beans’, he continued.

The pressures from centrally defined targets were similar to those experienced by local authorities and by other voluntary agencies more generally, including those providing advice and other services. As the chief executive of one such agency commented, ‘If you high perform you’re going to attract a lot of funding and when you have a lot of funding you can then deliver other things’ – and vice versa. So Law Centres ‘need to evolve and see themselves as a brand and as a market’ in order to attract more resources, and so be in a position to meet their social justice objectives. ‘Advice provision can become very commercial; Law Centres need to be aware of that’ he concluded.

This all required a very different approach, it was suggested. ‘The challenge for Law Centres is that they are going to have to become very very innovative … they’ve got to change their model like we have had to and they can’t continue with their socialist collective model’ according to an advice worker in a voluntary sector agency that had a collaborative relationship with another Law Centre. ‘We are led by a very business minded director’ she continued, and while driven by principles of serving the community ‘he is business minded first and foremost’ submitting funding bids and bidding for competitive tenders. This was the route taken by a number of Law Centres, deciding that flat management structures and collective working practices were no longer viable. Staffing structures needed to be revisited, along with staff pay and conditions – whilst striving to maintain their Law Centre’s overall ethos, supported by effective team working.

66 Collective working

Collective working had been typical of Law Centres’ ways of working. Although this had been a much valued feature of many Law Centres’ ethos from the early days, as chapter four has already indicated, collective ways of working were appreciated by some newer members of staff too. Working in a collective way had taken some getting used to, several commented, but it was seen as very positive to be treated with respect and ‘to feel valued’, as part of the team, despite these younger colleagues’ relative lack of experience.

As a staff member in another Law Centre reflected, she had become ‘far more involved in things [she] wouldn’t have been involved with before’, developing personal skills and confidence too, as a result. Subsequently in the interview she explained that when she had first taken up her post she had found it difficult, if not impossible, to contribute to team discussions, having been used to a hierarchy in the private sector where the boss gave the instructions, without asking staff for their views. Now she contributed freely to team discussions, taking ‘the bull by the horns’ to raise issues openly. This collective approach to working was an important aspect of the Law Centre’s ethos, in her view and it was important in terms of their effectiveness too. She gave an example, here, to illustrate the point. Around four years ago there had been the threat of cuts from the local council. The staff had ‘all really pulled together as a collective’ pursuing an open campaigning strategy as a result of which they had succeeded in maintaining their funding.

Given the value that had been placed on collective ways of working, it was unsurprising that moving away from this had been experienced as very negative, in a number of cases. Some two years previously, for example, a particular Law Centre had changed from being a collective (in response to the need to address the implications of the Carter changes). But this shift had been experienced as problematic and the arrangement ‘didn’t really work’. Overall, the result of the move from being a collective to having a manager was that ‘demoralisation has been substantial’ amongst staff, it was argued by the manager who subsequently took over.

In another Law Centre the decision to move from a collective to a more traditional organisational structure had actually been reversed. They moved from being a collective to having a hierarchy for a couple of years, but this hadn’t worked so well. So they reverted to the collective, and this had been maintained over the past ten years or so. Staff meetings normally dealt with any issues. Whilst the LSC’s requirements were described as being ‘administratively a pain’ the staff considered that ‘we do (this) quite well’ here, despite the constant changes in the rules. Meanwhile the management committee dealt with the strategic issues.

Whilst collective ways of working had been valued very positively, however, there were also examples of more negative experiences. Working in Law Centres where collectives had not been functioning effectively had evidently been frustrating and on occasions painful experiences, in fact. One lawyer described the first Law Centre is which he had worked, many years previously, as ‘a cantankerous and argumentative collective mismanaged by a local

67 management committee that had no concept of how to drive a Law Centre. The whole thing was dysfunctional to the extreme and actually fell to pieces about a year after he left and had to be rescued’ he reflected, going on to add that this Law Centre had indeed been effectively rescued and was ‘now a wholly different organization’.

The shift from collective to more traditional management structures had evidently been experienced positively in some cases. As one manager described this, the Law Centre was addressing the challenges, whilst the staff was described as being ‘on side’. They were actually relieved not to have responsibility of tendering and financial management. ‘This lets them get on with the job they want to do’ the manager explained, a view that was totally corroborated by the staff member who was interviewed (separately) in this particular Law Centre. A lawyer in a different Law Centre similarly explained that she was now the co-director, a position that was developed some four or five years ago, following the decision to move from a collective organisational structure. The collective had been a positive way to work in many ways. ‘It was lovely in the 70s and 80s’, she added. But there simply wasn’t time to operate in the collective mode now, given the increasing pressures. Although the decision to shift from the collective structure had been the subject of some discussion, at the time, there hadn’t been too much conflict. People were happy now, in her view, being able to come in and get on with their work, leaving those responsible to manage the financial and administrative pressures that the Law Centre was facing.

Comparable views were expressed by a very experienced lawyer, in another Law Centre with a long tradition of working as a collective. This Law Centre didn’t have a formal hierarchy but they had brought in a part-time administrator with directly relevant experience. ‘He’s fantastic’ the lawyer commented. Nobody had wanted to take on these managerial responsibilities and he had taken them on very effectively, greatly benefiting the Law Centre as a result, in her view.

This seemed to combine the benefits of effective administration with the strengths of good team working. There were similar examples of such successful combinations in a number of other Law Centres, including one Law Centre which had recently appointed an administrator whilst maintaining a collective approach to overall decision-making. Having resisted such a move for a long time, the staff in this particular Law Centre still saw themselves as working collectively – as the recently appointed administrator explained, he was the administrator working with the collective, not the ‘manager’, and the staff would be deeply resistant to him being described as the latter. It was essential to have leadership, whether or not the person concerned was called a manager or something else, it was similarly argued by the chief executive of a partner agency, adding that ‘even in a collective it’s down to leadership’; whatever the job title, that person needed to provide leadership and most importantly to have the necessary authority and confidence of the staff. There were examples of Law Centres successfully combining a clear management structure with democratic team working in practices.

68 In summary though, the challenges of moving from one type of organisational structure to another, to become more business-like, had been extremely challenging in a number of cases. As one trustee reflected on the process overall, this had been ‘a hard road’, quoting the example of redundancies as having been particularly problematic. ‘But the question again is do you want to continue’ he added. ‘It’s all about survival... sometimes an organisation has to adapt to survive. People don’t necessarily welcome this... but sometimes you have to take hard choices…it’s not a position that anybody would like to be in but... we do want to be here today and tomorrow. ‘It’s like a hot air balloon’ he concluded, ‘you just have to drop some sand bags. We’ve done that and we’ve faced up to that’.

Staffing structures

One of the related issues to be addressed was the issue of staffing structures. As one Law Centre manager commented, Law Centres tended to be seen as ‘top heavy with lawyers’ in comparison with caseworkers. Whilst this might have benefits for clients (being seen initially by the most experienced staff, well-equipped to diagnose their problems effectively) this did not ‘sit easily with the funding system for legal aid’. On the contrary in fact, the LSC’s view was that simpler cases could be handled effectively by para legal staff, working under professional legal supervision’. Journal articles have set out the ways in which such staffing systems were being deployed (Makepeace, 2009) – articles which provoked some controversy about different business models amongst those concerned with the provision of civil legal aid services (Scott- Moncrieff, 2010).

This type of solution (using paralegal caseworkers) was being adopted though, even in a Law Centre that described itself as having ‘held out as long as we could’ against this trend. But this was described as having become inevitable in the current financial climate. So in this particular Law Centre, caseworkers were now being employed and paid less than experienced lawyers.

Whilst lawyers continued to be self-servicing, in some Law Centres (including doing their own filing, for example) these practices were also shifting in other cases, with some staff trying to take on more of the background administrative work in order to free up the lawyers to concentrate on the more specialist legal aspects of the work.

Pay and conditions

Different views were also expressed about the pay and conditions of Law Centre staff, and the extent to which these could or should be restructured. One view was that many Law Centre staff were actually relatively well paid, with conditions of employment that compared favourably with those of other public sector employees (the view of one administrator, for instance). This, he felt, could not be justified in the current climate. Redundancies might also have to be explored, he continued, adding that ‘we’re not going to look the same as we do now’ for the future.

Others expressed very different views. Whilst some Law Centres were considered to have had relatively favourable pay and conditions in the past, there was also evidence that some staff were earning very considerably less than they would have been earning elsewhere, whether in the private or the public sector. As one lawyer explained, for instance, she would have been earning almost double her current salary, if she had stayed working as a legal officer with the local authority. Another similarly explained that she had taken a significant pay cut, moving from an academic job to work at her local Law Centre, adding that she was in a position to do this, because her family was now self-supporting. Lawyers were not necessarily comparatively well-paid, then, although relatively flat pay structures may well have been more favourable for support staff in some Law Centres.

The issue, in relation to redundancies, as one trustee explained, was the question of ‘are we treating them fair’... ‘have their rights been taken into account... has the criterion been fair... and if there were alternatives have we considered them? This trustee was only too aware that the staff in question had been producing what he described as ‘quality stuff’. A judge had recently commended one of the solicitors on the quality of the preparation for a case, for instance. But it was, perhaps, no longer feasible to give any one case such detailed time and attention in future, in his view.

As an alternative approach to staffing, to that described above, salary cuts had been applied in some cases, both in collectives and in more conventionally- managed Law Centres. The last financial year there had been ‘a 10% cut in salary so we could keep afloat, so that’s how we’ve managed to get by’ explained a member of staff in one Law Centre, for instance. A 15% cut was under consideration in a different Law Centre at the time of the interview. In another Law Centre a staff member described how the collective had taken the decision to take a voluntary pay cut, a decision that she had found very difficult, knowing as she did that some staff members would find it particularly hard to cope on the reduced salary given their family responsibilities. ‘It’s extremely difficult... it’s not something you do lightly’, she reflected, pointing out that the staff was not keen to ‘undermine our own employment rights’. She went on to draw parallels with the situations that affected other public service workers. Public service professionals such as nurses were often depicted as ‘angels’ but this was unhelpful, potentially trading upon their commitment, in her view - adding that ‘they still have to pay the rent’.

Arrangements for holidays and time off in lieu had also come under consideration. In one Law Centre, for example, staff had been working very long hours in order to cope with the volume of work, and so apparently amassing considerable amounts of time off in lieu. This had been an issue that the management committee had decided to address.

Long working hours without compensation in terms of time off in lieu was widespread, it emerged from the interviews. For some staff, this was simply what they did, in order to meet the demand for services. ‘We work harder, we do more work in our own time in the evenings’ explained a lawyer in another

70 Law Centre. But this was a problematic strategy, it was argued by others, when the result was staff time off for sickness and staff burn-out. As a lawyer in another Law Centre commented, there were colleagues ‘actually working themselves to the edge of stress and doing an incredible lot, late nights and sacrificing their lives for it’. He went on to provide an example, that of a colleague who was away with a stress-related illness. ‘That is because she worked herself completely to the bone on a case that she shouldn’t have taken on. But she said “sod this, we are a Law Centre and I am not going to let this one go” and it made her ill. That’s happened within the last week’ he added.

For some, these pressures became untenable, however, leading to decisions to leave despite their overall commitment to working for access to justice for all. The issue of long working hours and unpaid overtime is more fully explored in chapter eight, addressing the dilemmas associated with such labours of love, both for paid staff and for volunteers.

Use of volunteers

In addition to developing more effective ways of organising the work, some Law Centres were evidently finding ways of coping that included increasing the use of volunteers and/or using volunteers more effectively. Volunteers could help out with administrative work, for instance, and provide cover for reception work, as well as providing casework support when volunteers had relevant background knowledge and experience (such as law students and recently qualified lawyers). There were, in addition, examples of very experienced lawyers providing pro bono advice, sometimes over many years.

As one respondent suggested, volunteers fell into different categories. There were volunteers who had recently completed a law qualification and were keen to obtain experience. They generally wanted legal rather than administrative experience and tended not to stay very long, in any case. As employment opportunities had been becoming more restricted however, the use of volunteer lawyers was described as beginning to raise additional issues. Such volunteering opportunities could be described as unpaid internships.

This posed dilemmas in that it was widely argued that unpaid internships were potentially exploitative, and that people should be paid the rate for the job. As a trade unionist involved with Law Centres reflected, Law Centres had always relied on volunteers, but ‘increasingly it's going to be exploitation of volunteers’, adding that in the current situation ‘I've got no doubt they will be using unemployed solicitors, who want to keep their hand in, which will be total exploitation of those individuals and not fair for them either’. ‘It's just the government getting any kind of legal advice or legal support on the cheap, basically’ he concluded.

Despite reservations about the notion of unpaid internships, however, Law Centres could be faced with increasing pressures to provide such opportunities, raising additional questions about how to allocate them fairly, in line with equalities considerations (an issue upon which the LCF was considering providing guidance). One suggestion was that preference might be

71 given to those from local communities, young people without family connections in the legal profession who might find it even more difficult to find a route into the profession than those from more privileged backgrounds.

As one of the lawyers who was interviewed similarly explained, the economic downturn had meant that it was easier to find good volunteers, (although she went on to add that ‘you can’t just rely on volunteers’). There was, in her view too, evidence of competition for volunteering opportunities. As a recently qualified volunteer in a Law Centre reflected in comparable vein, ‘I want to repeat that it is really difficult to get into volunteering. Most of my friends say that it is really difficult because people expect you to have this experience but how are you supposed to have this experience while you are applying for a volunteering position?... it is really difficult’ this volunteer concluded. Volunteers were very aware of the benefits of striving to obtain such experience, though, especially in Law Centres, contrasting the benefits of volunteering in a Law Centre that provided induction and training with the experience of volunteering in a private firm where, as one young volunteer reflected, ‘they don’t train you, they don’t induct you - you make the coffee and tea’.

In addition there were volunteers who were students, working for and completing other qualifications, such as administrative qualifications. Some of these were described as being ‘fantastic’ whilst others were described as being more trouble to supervise than they were worth, in terms of their contributions. ‘Some volunteer because they really mean it’ commented another respondent…but some volunteer to fill a gap’, although she then went on to point out that volunteers often changed their views ‘as they work here’ in terms of job satisfaction and commitment to the Law Centre and its ethos.

There were also volunteers who provided very particular skills, such as fundraising, for example. Here again, this was sometimes because they were unable to find paid employment utilising these specific skills; as one long term volunteer fundraiser explained, for example, she was unable to find a suitable job despite having a master’s degree in business administration. She had hoped that gaining experience as a volunteer would assist in finding paid work, but this had so far failed to materialise. ‘I would love to have a (paid) job’ she concluded, however much she enjoyed volunteering at the Law Centre.

These types of volunteer (with particular skills and experience) tended to stay for longer, it was suggested – with potentially greater value for Law Centres which needed relatively long-term commitment, as a number of those interviewed argued. There were instances of Law Centres requiring volunteers to commit to three or more recently to six month periods, in order to maximise the benefits of unpaid labour, for example. Volunteers take time and energy to organise and support, if they are to contribute effectively, a point that was emphasised across the board, by Law Centre staff, colleagues from other agencies and lawyers in private practice. Unless they stayed for some time, the benefits might be limited, it was suggested. The benefits of volunteering have to be reciprocal, it was also argued.

72 A number of those interviewed also suggested that with time and resources, more could be achieved through providing training opportunities for students. Some Law Centres had on-going relationships with legal training agencies. As a lawyer with extensive experience of both Law Centres and legal training pointed out, this was very important for two reasons – providing services to meet unmet need in the short term and also motivating law students to undertake pro bono work in their future careers. Initially, the newer universities had been predominant in this field. Now, however, the older universities were engaged too (maybe partly the result of wider pressures and discussions about their missions and social responsibilities). There may also be pressures from students, in terms of wanting to strengthen their CVs and so improve their future employability. If all law schools provided this and reached even 50 clients a year, this could still make a significant contribution towards addressing unmet need, as well as having the potential to make major impacts on policy. This needed to be core to the delivery of the curriculum though, rather than an add-on, if it were to be sustainable in the context of funding cuts more generally, in his view.

Whilst this lawyer/academic was enthusiastic about what could be achieved, he also emphasised the importance of being realistic about the limitations. Universities had to focus upon the educational aspects. So, for example, they wouldn’t necessarily take on cases if similar cases had already been explored by the students in question, for instance. There were also limits to the cases that could be taken on in terms of their complexity. There was no way in which this type of university initiative could substitute for the provision of legal aid advice more generally, although there could be important benefits, including the promotion of pro bono contributions to Law Centres in the future.

As it has already been suggested, in some areas experienced lawyers were providing regular advice sessions on a pro bono basis, contributing specialist knowledge and skills. But this was not the case everywhere (with geographical differences impacting upon the availability of potential professional volunteers). And even where lawyers were providing advice, on a voluntary basis, this was generally only providing one aspect of the service (i.e. providing advice but not being available to follow this up, necessarily). In addition, lawyers generally emphasised the importance of staying strictly within their own particular areas of specialist expertise as the law had become increasingly complex, and subject to rapid change. A property specialist might give advice on housing matters at an evening advice session just as an employment lawyer might advise employees. But there were limits. Reflecting on a comment (made by another interviewee) that lawyers with specialist knowledge of shipping law were volunteering in a local Law Centre, another lawyer responded by describing this an ‘urban myth’. This simply wouldn’t happen, in his view.

In summary then, it seemed clear that volunteers could make significant and potentially increasing contributions to the work of Law Centres and this could be mutually beneficial, helping to reproduce Law Centres’ ethos and mission, for future generations. But there was no way that volunteers – whether legally qualified or not - were going to be able to substitute for paid staff, for the

73 future. There are parallels here with attempts to increase the use of volunteers in Third Sector organisations more generally, with similar dilemmas about the uses and potential abuses of volunteers, and unpaid internships, where these substitute for the employment of paid staff. Chapter eight takes up some of these issues more fully.

The use of telephone and internet based mechanisms for delivering legal advice

One further strategy to address the pressures on Law Centres related to the use of telephone and internet delivery systems. The LSC was interested in promoting this, as a means of increasing the cost-effectiveness of service provision, and so were a number of local authorities, for similar reasons. This was also an issue of potential interest to Law Centres themselves, both in Britain and more widely.

In several areas, for example, there were joint electronic referral systems. This type of system was described as being ‘very successful’ in one area, contributing to joined-up advice services in the city. Someone accessing any one agency was effectively accessing all the advice services as s/he could be effectively referred to an appropriate agency if this was deemed necessary. It was also pointed out that effective electronic systems could strengthen the contributions being made by lawyers providing pro bono advice (facilitating more effective follow-ups).

Here too though, there were limits to this as a potential strategy to meet the needs of Law Centre clients. As a local authority officer who had considered this reflected, whilst there was indeed scope for a telephone gateway system in the area, it was important to acknowledge that when it came to the actual advice needed, there were clients who ‘do really want to see a real person’ face-to-face. There were a number of reasons for this, including the difficulties that clients with English as a second language might experience, especially if they had to use pay phones to make contact. Telephone gateways and internet access might work very well for some clients but clients with complex problems and needs (including mental health issues) would continue to need face-to-face contact, right from the start.

Management committees/ boards of trustees

As chapter four has already indicated, the administrative requirements related to the fixed fee system and the LSC’s targets were also in some cases impacting upon the roles and compositions of management committees/ boards of trustees (the name varied depending upon the particular arrangements in different Law Centres). Whilst some management committees/ boards of trustees still retained community and user community representatives, others were less rooted in these ways. This was partly due to changes in the nature of communities and community organisations, it was suggested (with less powerfully organised tenants’ federations and trades councils than had been the case in the past, for instance). But it was also due

74 to the time pressures that were involved, together with the demands for more specialist expertise, particularly legal and financial expertise. In some cases management committee members/ trustees were being approached on the basis of the particular skill sets that they could bring, including experience of management elsewhere in the public sector and/ or in private practice. Whilst this was seen as a necessary response, there were concerns about the potential loss of more community based representation, it has been suggested. ‘It is a challenge to keep the community base whilst bringing in the expertise that we need’, as the community worker in one Law Centre summarised this.

Management committees/ trustees also spoke of some of the challenges that they had faced, including the challenges involved in decisions about making members of staff redundant and revisiting conditions of employment in Law Centres facing financial crises. An understanding of employment law was key here, in addition to the requirements for other forms of management expertise. Somewhat ironically a trade union background emerged as an example of particularly relevant expertise here, in terms of having the knowledge and experience to ensure that procedures were fair and that employees’ rights were respected. It was ‘such a horrible position to get into’. But ‘my job’ as a management committee member ‘is to get the best for the organisation while being fair to the people we employ’ one trade unionist reflected – although he went on to add that ‘fairness is a relative concept. From a manager’s point of view it is perfectly fair to make people redundant if you need to [to save the Law Centre] but employees obviously have a different view about what is fair’.

Charging clients

As it has also been suggested in previous chapters, the issue of whether to charge clients for services emerged from the first round of interviews as particularly contentious, being seen by some as the ultimate capitulation to market forces. For others, however, this was being recognised as a perhaps necessary concession as part of strategies to preserve Law Centre services, in an increasingly challenging climate. As one lawyer explained for instance, at this stage, it might be necessary to explore the case for making modest charges in some areas, if this was the only way to ensure access to justice. He went on to point out that any form of charging was potentially problematic, however, risking undermining the Law Centre’s ethos (of open access to justice, regardless of the ability to pay). Housing and benefits clients would be unlikely to be in a position to pay, in any case, although there might be some scope for charging for some immigration work, his colleague added, reflecting that she was ‘open to anything to be honest’ including setting up a separate trading arm, if this was the only way to ‘keep going for my clients’. This would be a matter for the Law Centres as a movement, though, rather than any one Law Centre in her view. And she recognised that some people did have very strong objections to some such proposals that were currently under consideration within the Law Centres movement. Between them, then, these two lawyers summarised the range of views that were prevalent at this period.

75 Amongst those most opposed to charging it was argued that ‘all the staff and all the management committee members are really opposed’ because ‘the ethos of the Law Centre would be undermined’. Such a move would also put enormous administrative burdens on the staff’ as they would have to deal with a range of issues such as VAT, for example, and it would be ‘running a business….not providing for the community’, it was argued. ‘Is the price too big’ this Law Centre worker asked, to which the answer he gave was clearly ‘yes’. For a lawyer working in another Law Centre this was similarly an issue of principle, potentially ‘a resigning issue’.

Similar points about the administrative issues involved were made by staff in Law Centres and in partner advice agencies who were interviewed in the second phase of the research. By this time, however, as one administrator in a Law Centre reflected, although this issue was deeply contentious it was definitely on the agenda and becoming less hypothetical, as the threats to the availability of legal aid increased. This would be challenging to implement fairly however, and would require new structures, such as separate trading arms that would need to be established.

As the administrator in a Law Centre had already commented, charging was only being considered ‘out of desperation’. The risk was that charging some clients would result in serving some 25% less of the most needy clients, in the view of one member of staff in a partner advice agency for instance – although he went on to recognise that others had differing and perhaps more pragmatic views, deciding that half a service would be better than no service. This was also the view of the chief executive of a partner agency in a different area who was interviewed in the second phase of the research. Whilst understanding the ethical dilemmas involved, he suggested that ‘we just have to get over that really’. If charging were necessary to preserve access to justice, then ‘so be it’. It would be better to have the service provided by a Law Centre with its value base and ethos than by some of the private firms that were currently operating in the area, too many of whom were offering a poorer quality service, in his view.

The potential viability of charging was similarly questioned in the second phase interviews, however. As the chief executive of another agency commented ‘what makes them think that they’ll make money?’ What would they do if clients were unable to pay? ‘It’s not the panacea that people may think, although it may help’ he added. It might be more realistic, in his view, to set up a separate trading arm, to take different types of cases, if Law Centres were able to compete effectively with private firms in their areas on both quality and price. As it was, funding from the LSC was failing to cover the real costs of providing the service. But how many Law Centre clients would be in a position to pay more than this, he wondered?

This point was similarly emphasised by a lawyer in private practice. Although absolutely not opposed to charging in principle, he questioned what kind of contribution clients on Job Seekers Allowance would actually be able to make. The level of funding would be ‘chicken feed’ in his view, and the bookkeeping involved in levying such charges would be ‘madness’, as well as potentially

76 impacting upon the relationships between Law Centres and their clients in disadvantaged communities.

Finally, a lawyer in private practice who provided pro bono advice sessions in a local Law Centre reflected that if the Law Centre were to start charging clients then this might impact on her willingness to give her time voluntarily. ‘It (charging) wouldn’t feel quite right’ in her view. Charging would also raise administrative issues such as those relating to insurance, for instance. Nor did she consider that setting up a separate trading arm to cross-subsidise Law Centres’ legal aid type work would be a realistic option. Many private firms, such as the one in which she worked, were already effectively cross subsidising legal aid work, in the sense that this was less profitable than their work in other areas of law. ‘Would I want to give my time if it was being charged for – I don’t think I would’ she concluded.

In summary then, charging had been a hotly debated issue. As one lawyer explained, for some of his colleagues in Law Centres, this was ‘a slippery slope thing and if you tamper with that not only do you lose your own integrity, but the public you serve will start to see you as a money-making thing and not a community service. On the whole I agree with that’. But, as he then went on to explain, ‘because I am not a purist, because I am a compromiser and an acknowledger of complexity I don’t think you can simply leave it at that. If the consequence of leaving it at that is that you die and end up with no service I would say “hang on that is an awful price to pay for simplicity and purity”’. As he added, however, charging was in some ways a ‘completely non answer’, given the target clientele’s restricted ability to pay.

Over time, though, there was evidently greater acceptance across Law Centres that whatever the problems, charging would need to be considered as part of any future survival strategy. This chimed with the more general views that were expressed by a trustee with wide-ranging experience of management in the public service sector, views that have already been quoted in chapter four. In her opinion public policy reforms had been chiselling away at the public service ethos over past decades. Public attitudes could be softened up to accept changes she suggested, and lines that had been thought to have been firmly drawn could turn out to have been lines drawn in the sand.

In summary then, pressures to become more business-like were resulting in significant changes in the ways in which Law Centres were working, posing increasing dilemmas as they attempted to hold onto their ethos and values. Some Law Centres were finding ways to safeguard collaborative ways of working whilst meeting the administrative requirements of the LSC, just as some Law Centres were developing effective partnerships to provide more holistic services to clients, despite the pressures to compete with other providers, as chapter six describes in more detail. Whilst there was continuing resistance to the processes of marketisation however, the ground was shifting, as the discussion of attitudes towards charging illustrates.

77 Chapter 6: Conflict and competition versus collaboration and planning

This chapter explores the issues of conflict and competition on the one hand and collaboration and planning on the other. The first section summarises the tendencies towards conflict and competition that impacted on Law Centres’ relationships with other agencies, in the past. This sets the context for the discussion of public service modernisation with its associated pressures towards increasing competition. The final section then moves on to explore the countervailing strategies that have been developed in a number of Law Centres, where the approach has been to build more collaborative relationships, planning together with other agencies to develop more joined up services to meet clients’ needs more holistically, as well as more cost effectively .

Conflict and competition in the past

Although there were examples of collaborative relationships, Law Centres also experienced relationships of both conflict and competition, in the past - inevitably so, perhaps, given their role as advocates, enabling their clients to pursue their rights and challenge unfair or inequitable treatment. Although a number of those interviewed commented on the relatively collaborative relationships that they had developed with public officials such as local authority officers, for example, they also recognised that these relationships could become strained. Lawyers could find themselves cross examining officers in court one day and then speaking to them on the telephone and looking for collaboration on another issue, the following day.

A management committee member from one Law Centre similarly reflected on their relationship with other agencies, including the NHS (in relation to health and social care, for example). There was sympathetic understanding of the ways in which these organisations were experiencing their own funding challenges, which impacted on their abilities to meet clients’ needs. Yet it was also argued that it was important that such understanding should not prevent the Law Centre from pursuing clients’ rights and entitlements effectively. Hospitals were under pressure to move patients on, for instance, whether or not there was adequate provision for care in the community. As a respondent from another Law Centre commented, whilst understanding the pressures that colleagues in other agencies and services were experiencing too, ‘it was important not to let this go too far, or you could end up colluding in a situation in which the client wasn’t getting what they needed’ (such as getting their housing repairs done, for instance). Sometimes agencies did have to be challenged, whatever the pressures on them too.

In other cases, however, it was clear that the relevant local authority/ authorities had very different attitudes towards their local Law Centre(s), with no intention of providing resources, let alone collaborating in other ways. As one of those interviewed put this, although some local officers had

78 collaborative relationships with the Law Centre, councillors tended to see it as ‘a thorn in their side’. ‘A pain in the arse’ was how a lawyer in another Law Centre put this. It should be added, though, that even here, relationships with some officers remained generally positive, in this particular locality, despite such sporadic conflicts of interest with policy-makers.

There were also examples of situations in which a change of political control, following a local election, led to the breakdown of previously relatively constructive relationships (although, in more than one case, a subsequent further change of political control had reversed this situation again). These relationships could be fragile then – even before the public expenditure cuts that were widely expected to impact on predicted local authority funding. As a local authority representative where there had been a strong relationship with the advice sector, described these uncertainties: ‘We’re on a moving platform – we will have to react and respond and will have to change’, with undoubted consequences for advice services in the area in question, including the Law Centre.

The impact of public service modernisation: pressures to compete

As previous chapters have already pointed out, one of the distinctive features of public service modernisation agendas, and marketisation agendas more generally, has been the pressure to compete, competition being assumed to promote increasing efficiency and choice. Many Law Centres had already had some experience of competing with other agencies, such as the Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB). The funding system for legal aid that was introduced following the Carter reforms exacerbated previously existing tendencies towards competition, as agencies bid against each other for contracts.

The research questionnaire asked respondents if they agreed or disagreed with the view that the unified contract system ‘potentially fosters competition between local providers, putting at risk longstanding partnerships and collaborative ways of working’, to which a significant majority of 87% of respondents either strongly or broadly agreed. From the interviews, more detailed findings emerged, illustrating some of the ways in which these pressures towards increasing competition were being experienced. These included staff mistrust between different agencies and the fact that some of the larger advice agencies were seen as ‘predatory’ when it came to bidding for contracts. The bidding process illustrated precisely these increasing tensions. In one case for example, where a partnership between a Law Centre, a CAB and a private firm had been successfully established, combining their areas of expertise and side-stepping competition, Shelter was described as ‘bidding aggressively’ on its own, in competition, rather than working in partnership with these other organisations. This meant that the partnership decided to ‘go for everything too’ otherwise ‘we’d have got nothing’, in this ‘winner takes all’ context.

Funding was, inevitably the strongest driver for competition. The then current economic pressures were also being compounded by fears about how legal and advice services would be funded (or not) in the future. These pressures were

79 being experienced by many as a literal ‘fight for survival’. A newly appointed Law Centre employee explained, for example, that when he had joined there had been a huge focus on the LSC tender, a bidding process in which the Law Centre was successful. However the process had involved competition between different agencies which he described as a ‘kill or be killed situation’. One agency a few miles away was actually going out of business as a result of losing out in the bidding process, whilst a couple of other advice centres had closed in recent years. The interviewee said he had been shocked by the competitive element, which he felt was not in the best interest of providing a holistic service in the area. But this had been the result of the process, as it had turned out.

A number of interviewees commented that the problem was not only that the LSC funding system was not funding wider and collaborative ways of working but that, as one interviewee expressed the problem, it ‘actually drives wedges between organisations that should be working together’. This view contrasts sharply with the LSC’s given objectives for community legal aid which stress greater collaboration between services. As another interviewee reflected there were ‘potential tensions with other advice agencies. So far relationships had actually remained positive but pressures have been increasing, potentially leading to more tensions in future.’

A stakeholder from an advice agency commented on the ongoing tension between collaboration and competition in a somewhat more positive vein, however, recognising the competing pressures towards conflict on the one hand versus collaboration and partnership on the other:

‘There will be opportunities where we can work together and there may also be times when we are ‘a bit pissed off’ when the other is delivering something that you wanted to but after a few days you are back to working together again. There is a lot of trust there but it’s a complex relationship and also quite healthy that we don’t trust each other completely. It keeps us on our toes.’

In some cases where Law Centres and other advice services had already formed collaborative partnerships, though, funding pressures were experienced differently in that they had positioned themselves in a way that made them externally competitive, whilst being able to make collective decisions about sharing resources and service provision.

Conflicting pressures and varying approaches

Whilst there was evidence that Law Centres were experiencing increasing pressures towards competition, then, the reality was more complex: there were also pressures towards increasing partnership working and greater collaboration. These pressures emanated from the top down, from the LSC itself, as well as from some other agencies, particularly local authorities, looking to develop more strategic (and more cost effective) services in their areas. But they also emanated from the bottom up, as Law Centres and other agencies developed joint strategies, based upon collaboration and partnership

80 working, rather than upon competition. In examining the varying responses to the conflicting pressures both to compete and to collaborate, the research encountered experiences that could be plotted across a wide spectrum. Even where there were examples of successful collaborative partnerships, stakeholders recognised the pressures and sometimes necessity of competition. As a CAB director stated: ‘One of the challenges is - when are we partners and when are we competing?’ While they were ‘natural allies’ with the Law Centre and working closely within an advice network, in his view occasions had arisen when only one advice partner was needed in bidding for a particular funding opportunity. He added that ‘As our relationship matures’ they would have to find a way to manage this tension. There were other examples of this kind of complexity, for example one Law Centre mentioned their involvement in capacity building and the provision of specialist support to other advice agencies, such as CABs. This was deemed problematic by others in the area, however, as some CABs saw themselves as being in potential competition, rather than collaboration with the Law Centre in question.

Relationships between agencies have therefore neither been straightforward nor static and have been subject to ongoing growth, commitment, change and reactions to shifts in policy and funding – whether positively or negatively. In one instance, where co-operation between the Law Centre and other agencies had been historically regarded as strong (with what were described as ‘good levels of trust’), this co-operation was seen as being ‘eroded by competitive tendering. This is the market approach versus the community approach and there is a tension. The LSC system encourages competition.’

At this point, the LSC’s own interventions to promote collaboration and the development of consortia need to be considered too. As it has already been pointed out in chapter two, the LSC had aimed to promote joint bidding, through the development of CLACs and CLANs. The piloting of CLACs and CLANs had provided evidence of the challenges inherent in this type of top- down approach, however, as chapter two has already illustrated.

In one area, for example, the instigation of a CLAC had ultimately led to less rather than more collaboration. This was despite a starting point where a large group of agencies working with the local authority were motivated towards developing an advice partnership in order to provide a more holistic service and improve referrals for clients. The main reasons given for the situation imploding were that there wasn’t sufficient time or resources to build partners’ relationships and therefore this affected levels of trust, with smaller agencies having concerns about being ‘swallowed up’ by larger providers. This was further exacerbated by uncertainties about funding, the future of CLACs and changes in key local authority staff.

In summary then, many interviewees expressed severe misgivings about the impact of the Carter changes for Law Centres through its effects on increasing competition, despite the somewhat unsuccessful attempts to promote collaboration via the CLACs and CLANs. It was argued that the push to become more managerial, entrepreneurial and ultimately ‘business-like’ was

81 in danger of radically changing the rationale of Law Centres, and, as one interviewee added ‘It’s fracturing the Law Centres’ movement’.

Alternative approaches: building collaboration and partnership working to meet local needs more holistically and more effectively

The research also illustrated examples of alternative approaches, however, with active resistance to increasing competition, starting from the recognition that different agencies had different areas of expertise. Collectively, it was argued, they could best meet the needs of the groups and communities that they aimed to serve and collectively they stood the best chance of survival. Law Centres were frequently cited as being a fundamental and irreplaceable part of such wider advice networks, providing a cornerstone of expert legal advice and recourse to justice, as the case studies illustrate in more detail. These types of strategies differed from the LSC’s approach, however. As one interviewee stated:

‘We see a broad range of services meeting the different need of different communities as inherently a good thing’ going on to add though that: ‘We don’t think that centralisation is necessarily a good thing when it comes to advice services’.

In other words, partnerships needed to start from community needs, rather than services being provided by large national providers, without local networks and locally rooted understandings of community based needs. In this particular instance the agencies in question chose to promote a ‘stand together - die alone kind of approach’. In doing so, city-wide, they brought together both the larger advice agencies (including the Law Centre) and the smaller community-based agencies to form a network that collectively gathered data and mapped access to advice, geographically, to assess advice provision. They worked closely with the local authority to help inform the most effective allocation of resources and ensure that provision was responsive to identified areas of need. This approach clearly had potential implications for greater efficiencies and savings or re-allocation of budgets in more cost effective ways.

Some of the challenges that were inherent, however, even where there were strong collaborative partnerships involved in strategically mapping provision, emerge in the case studies that follow. As an interviewee from a Law Centre reflected, describing a new LSC contract which involved a consortium with the CAB and other agencies, this approach was ‘totally new to us. It could be a good thing. But it could also cause tensions’.

Partnerships and collaboration: what is needed to effectively collaborate?

Collaboration is about far more than having referral systems between agencies. It could be seen more as a continuum of various levels of partnership involvement. This involves better understanding of other agencies’ roles and

82 expertise and finding ways to work more closely with the same client. In one area where there was a well-established advice network, connections through cross-referral were the starting points for organisational relationships upon which to build subsequently. What both the CLACs and CLANs pilots and this research illustrate is that there would seem to be a number of fundamental factors that need to be in place for genuine advice networks to be able to evolve and become sustainable. Although there were differences, as it has already been suggested (Legal Services Commission, 2011), many of the motivations for collaborative working actually seemed to overlap with the LSC’s stated aims for community legal aid to:

• Enable people to protect their fundamental rights and sort out legal disputes • Tackle disadvantage and promote social inclusion • Deliver legal advice services to local communities according to local needs and priorities • Provide quality integrated legal advice services ranging from basic information to representation in court, which offer value for money and are supported by co-ordinated funding • Be independent of funders and government • Bring services to clients who do not currently access legal services.

The interviews undertaken within the case study areas where there were robust, well-developed advice networks had a commonality in that they were, despite current funding pressures, positive about the ways in which they had positioned themselves as part of a wider network, collectively able to plan for and respond both to external challenges and to the needs of their client groups and communities.

The active advice partnerships had a strong correlation with lead members of staff driving them, as well as historical organisational relationships. Whilst local authorities played a key role in promoting and supporting a number of these, the partnerships had an independent rationale. The examples the research encountered usually had one or two lead organisations (headed by strongly motivated individuals) within a wider network, with the possibility of accessing dedicated resources to furthering this project. It should also be emphasised that Law Centres were central to the successful partnerships that the research identified. Other stakeholders recognised the inputs of the leads and trusted that their best interests were interlinked. For example one interviewee described the Law Centre manager as having ‘a lot of experience and (she) is selfless in putting herself forward to represent all of them and the work they do.’ Another interviewee reflected in similar vein that ‘the contribution that the Law Centre has played’ in the advice network ‘has been tremendous.’

Importantly too, as has already been suggested, the examples of such positive collaborations had all successfully attracted funding to support these developments, including in some instances funding for dedicated advice network staff. As one stakeholder explained, successfully applying for funding

83 in order to develop their collaborative partnership had ‘enabled us to come to the position we’re now in’ with a fully fledged advice network that existed as an independent body. This interviewee added that all of the advice agencies involved were ‘very independent’ and therefore it had taken time to build up trust and understanding of the other organisations. They also needed to identify common purposes and the ways in which they wanted to work collectively. In another example funding from both the Big Lottery Fund and the Barings Foundation covered the three posts which were needed to support a wide network of advice agencies in both sustaining and developing their collaborative practices. In these instances the advice agencies involved clearly felt better able and resourced to strategically anticipate and respond to challenges, rather than, as one interviewee described it, there being a situation in which there was ‘insufficient strategic thinking’ resulting in the fact that the Law Centre was ‘constantly fire -fighting, reactively’.

In the areas which offered examples of effective partnerships and collaborative work, staff and stakeholders tended to express improved morale and more positive outlooks about their ability to contend with current challenges. For example one interviewee said that the funding issues represented ‘a huge challenge. I think the legal aid cuts are going to decimate huge sections of the country’ but in their city, the advice agencies had collectively worked with the local authority and secured core funding, which he believed would allow them to survive the next three years at least.

Conversely the experience in an area where there have been significant competitive pressures and a breakdown of collaboration had impacted negatively on the staff within the Law Centre as well as across the advice sector, more generally. One interviewee said that they would ‘love to have been able to describe the situation in terms of the ‘Dunkirk spirit’, all pulling together in the face of external challenges. But this hadn’t actually been the case. On the contrary, the pressures had led to internal divisions. There was ‘a lack of solidarity’ and more mutual suspicion.

Defining the distinct roles of different agencies appeared to be crucial and more importantly how these could most effectively augment the work of each, thereby offering more cohesive and integrated advice services. As one stakeholder explained ‘the CAB and the Law Centre are massively different, in positive complementary ways’. What was also vital to this picture was that the local authority in question was strongly committed to both agencies and to developing a more strategic approach overall in the area, having recently conducted a review of Information, Advice and Guidance. It should be noted however that whilst there were examples of collaboration between CABs and Law Centres, in a number of areas the research found CABs and Law Centres situated in direct competition, with CABs often seen as having a higher visibility through their nationally recognised branding.

In another area a Law Centre and voluntary sector organisation were jointly funded by the local authority to provide an anti-discrimination service. This was based on a clear definition of roles and recognition of complementary areas of expertise. A number of interviewees felt that it was collectively that advice agencies could best offer a complete and integrated advice service to

84 clients including both specialist and generalist advice. However without the underpinning of Law Centres’ specialist legal advice, as it has already been suggested, the ability to effectively work through complex cases would be lost. As a stakeholder explained, for example, ‘we’re really worried’ about the changes to legal aid as if the Law Centre closed ‘we’d be lost without them’. While they were able to do ‘first tier’, front-line, generalist legal work themselves, it was the second tier specialist legal support for which the Law Centre was vital. So losing the expertise of Law Centre would also have threatened the provision of other advice agencies.

Key elements of collaboration

A number of interviewees referred to the time and resources needed to develop collaborative partnership work. For example one interviewee explained that networking with other organisations, groups and community organisations had ‘gone’ because this ‘takes time’ and was not funded. As a result their Law Centre had become more isolated as an organisation. This situation had then been compounded by competition for contracts which, in their opinion, was undermining networking and cohesion across the advice sector.

This was reiterated in one area where the Law Centre had historically worked with other local organisations in order to be able to offer their services to specific groups, for example through their local Women’s Advice Centre. But this outreach ‘will have to cut back because we don't get paid by anybody for the time spent going there.’ The interviewee also referred to their involvement in a local forum of advice agencies including the CAB and a refugee centre. This was ‘struggling to continue strictly because the time taken by any of us going to a meeting there which may take three hours including travelling, this time we should be spending on worrying about our own agencies and our own businesses and trying to keep them going.’

In summary then, the research identified that key elements from the examples of positive collaboration between Law Centres and other agencies include (in no particular order): • Clearly identifying the benefits of greater collaboration • Having time – for partnership relationships to develop ‘buy in’ and trust • Local authorities valuing a range of advice services and positively supporting them in working together – including in some instances developing an approach to strategic reviews involving genuine consultation across the advice sector • Having specific funding and resources to develop and sustain advice networks and having opportunities and resources committed to longer term strategic planning • Having clarity about roles, services and areas of expertise including points of overlap, opportunity and specialism • Improving systems for monitoring and evidencing the range and complexity of their work

85 • Working towards joined-up services for the client including systems for cross-referral • Resisting pressures to compete but recognising that this may occur and managing any resulting tensions • Lead agency/agencies being willing to commit time and resources to developing this work • Sharing the recognition that Law Centres provide a way to challenge service providers and that this is both necessary and potentially constructive • Geography – this was conducive to networking where agencies all knew each other and had clearly defined catchment areas. It also better enabled mapping of services and needs.

Whilst some of the benefits of collaboration were cited as: • Sharing resources / using resources more cost effectively • Sharing expertise, effectively building capacity in the process • Improving the ability to formulate stronger projects and bids • Developing effective systems for cross-referral • Consolidating data creating fuller evidence of need and take-up of services • Improving staff morale better as a result of not being isolated • Strengthening strategic responsiveness rather than remaining trapped in reactive ‘fire-fighting’ and most importantly • Resulting in better services for the clients.

The role of local authorities in promoting collaboration and holistic approaches

The role of local authorities and their approach to the advice sector emerged as a significant factor in the case study areas’ resilience in contending with current challenges. In a number of areas the local authority was seen as directly responsible, in fact, for whether competition or collaboration between agencies was the pervading influence. The approach adopted in each local authority area was shaped by its specific context, including the historical and political context.

A councillor in one case study areas reflected for example that: ‘The Law Centre makes a vital contribution to making sure the most disadvantaged….have access to legal remedies and some sort of justice.’ Asked to describe the local authority relationship with advice services, he replied that ‘we’ve always believed in partnership’ and so they had a strong commitment to this. However he also described the current situation as ‘the most challenging circumstances we’ve ever been in’ concluding that there was therefore a particular need ‘to pull together and support each other’.

In another city the representative of an advice agency commented on the local authority’s approach to commissioning advice services, saying: ‘There is understanding that there is a better way to commission than straightforwardly competitive tendering and that it’s important to take a more strategic

86 approach to advice services as a whole in the city.’ This had enabled and supported the agencies in their efforts to ‘make things work better with clear pathways that all of the agencies use.’ This ultimately provided a better service for those seeking advice at any single agency or point of contact, it was considered. The motivation for this had been in part because it was what the local authority wanted but also there had been a strong push from the agencies themselves; an attitude described as ‘let’s do the best that we can with it’ in the interests of the clients. In fact one of the frequently-cited motivations for collaboration was improving services and access to them for those most in need.

Where the relationships were particularly positive, local authority interviewees gave a number of reasons for working with existing providers to support a collaborative approach to advice services and commissioning. These overlap to some extent with advice agencies’ own motivations and included:

• More joined-up service provision • Better coverage and service offer to clients • Avoiding conflicts of interest • Supporting the voluntary sector • Facilitating cross referral • Targeted provision for specific groups • Sharing resources and expertise • More effective deployment of limited resources • Better value for money.

The partnership approach was also seen to require ‘buy in’ by the agencies involved, as fully active partners. Law Centres were frequently seen as lead or key partners in these authentic networks, and as such were appreciated for their core values and ethos which were valued by stakeholders and partners, including local authorities.

Some local authorities recognised that while there may sometimes be tensions in their funding (which was used to support complaints against the local authorities). Law Centres’ existence and independence has been a vital constituent of access to justice for individuals as well as having significance for service improvements more widely. This was a relationship that required careful management, although some local authorities clearly valued this independent role, despite the potential tensions. For instance one local authority interviewee reflected that a better exchange of information between the local authority and the Law Centre could actually lead to systems change, thereby reducing the instances that led to complaints. She commented:

‘Where there is a tension is probably around the tackling discrimination service where you get cases that are against the council and actually what we would like is to have some anonymised information about the types of cases against the council so we can use that to learn from it and actually think about stopping things from happening rather than a number of cases going in and actually the legal challenge being taken all the way.’

87 In the three case study areas which follow, the local authorities had either recently undertaken a strategic review or were in the process of doing so. In these instances the strategic reviews were not only concerned with efficiency and rationalisation but also with such preventative roles. Local authority strategic reviews were also concerned with supporting collaboration between advice agencies leading to greater integration with clearly defined roles based on differing fields of expertise and different areas of geographical coverage. In one pertinent illustration, for example, a local authority representative said:

‘We have commissioned them to join up better and to think about strengths and not duplicate. They have thought more about where they deliver and who to and defined themselves or extended and developed more. There are some natural geographic boundaries but they have had to look at joining up better.’

This was underpinned by this local authority’s commitment to the advice sector, ring fencing funding and resisting the ‘the move to joint commissioning’, via the LSC’s promotion of CLACs and CLANs. This local authority resistance had been due to its awareness of the needs of the network of advice provision and wanting to capacity build the sector before this new commissioning approach was implemented. As a local authority interviewee commented ‘because we worked with the sector and the advice network and we went to consultation with the sector’ it was a lengthy process, but one which has paid off in that ‘there has been a real change through this process’ resulting in the fact that ‘it feels far more like a partnership now rather than us and them’.

For a number of local authorities and advice sector agencies the ideal scenario was described as ‘customer focused’ with the client accessing at any point across an advice network and then being referred between agencies in response to their individual needs. This type of advice network was not only contingent on close collaboration but recognised the vital role of the Law Centre as the source of specialist legal advice and support which underpinned the advice services offered across the rest of the network. In several instances where there this kind of joined up service had developed there had been investment in setting up shared systems for client monitoring and referral. This had an added benefit for the local authority and advice sector in that it built a more comprehensive picture of levels of service use and needs.

This all contrasts with areas where there has been a tendency for greater competition and less collaboration. In such areas, typically there have been less supportive relationships between Law Centres and the local authority. This was played out in the introduction of competitive tendering. As one Law Centre member of staff described:

‘Competition has crept in; we’re all competing for the same pot of money – a typical example is the CAB and the Law Centre competing for funding from the local authority and so the question is: whose bid is better? You have to make an assessment on whose bid is better and how much they get. Sometimes you split it down the middle and you say OK half each. But in another situation there’s just £10 on the table, only one person’s going to

88 get it so it’s going to be winner takes it all. And it is going to be on the basis of a bid.’

The consequences of a solely competitive approach driven by a scarcity of funding undermined the possibilities of an integrated advice sector providing complementary services. Instead this seemed likely to favour the survival of some agencies at the cost of others. This bleak outlook was summarised by an interviewee as follows:

‘if we don't win this contract for the local authority... and the party that does win it which could be the local Citizens Advice, ….don't commission us (or) subcontract any work to us then I think that it's highly unlikely that we continue to operate just on LSC funding alone. There doesn't seem to be in this bid society any kind of alternative funding available to us. I mean there is some transitional money from the central government but now...my concern is... I think that we are reaching the end. And I suspect we may be one of the Law Centres that have to close and disappear.’

Collaborating, competing with or becoming like the private sector?

There have been pressures on Law Centres to become more business oriented, as previous chapters have already argued. As an interviewee from an advice agency commented ‘The challenge for Law Centres is they are going to have to become very very innovative; that’s what they’re going to have to be’, ‘they’ve got to change, they’ve got to change their model like we have had to...’. The interviewee added that ‘they need to become businesses that are able to provide for the community’. The interviewee’s own organisation had responded to funding pressures by ‘constantly looking at new ideas, new commissioning ideas, moving with the funding approach that’s out there, so at the moment it’s gone from grants to commissioning’. She strongly believed that it is by ‘having to go with a more corporate approach where you have to be able to prepare tenders and compete’ that they had been able to respond to current challenges.

This links to a more specific question, namely the nature of Law Centres’ relationships with the private sector itself: were these relationships of competition or collaboration? A number of interviewees questioned whether Law Centres either could or should compete with private firms of solicitors. As one interviewee reflected, competing ‘on the basis of price was a no-winner’ unless they accepted poorer conditions of employment and lower wages, whilst reducing the time and attention given to clients. These issues have already been considered in more detail in chapter five.

By contrast, however, the research also explored a number of instances where Law Centres had collaborative relationships with private legal practices. For example one Law Centre cited a number of connections with private firms including referrals from them based upon the Law Centre’s specific expertise in welfare law and employment law. Some of these firms also offered the Law Centre pro bono work, doing surgeries, for instance, as part of their commitment to social responsibility. This type of relationship was clearly

89 mutually beneficial with private firms benefitting from enhancing their corporate image, their staff gaining useful experience, and the possibility of new clients being referred onto them, as chapter eight considers in more detail.

This experience was echoed by a stakeholder who, as both a local councillor and as a solicitor, had a good understanding of the motivations of both the private sector and Law Centres. He explained that he used to do a voluntary weekly session at an income rights centre (subsequently the Law Centre) and he was supported in this by the private firm for which he was then working. This relationship was seen to be beneficial for both in a number of ways, making a useful contribution to the wider society and enabling referrals between agencies. He felt that there was a lot of good will and good motivation within private practice. He himself became a lawyer in order to be able to help people, and therefore he stressed that some people within the private sector were motivated by similar ideals to Law Centre staff.

As previous chapters have also suggested, however, this was far from representing the whole picture. This particular councillor/solicitor also commented that the Law Centre was filling a gap that was not compensated for by law firms doing legal aid work. He added that while fifteen years ago someone could walk into a private law firm and get legal aid and the advice they needed, this was not the case anymore. He felt that this was due at least in part to increasing specialisation. This meant that private firms offering specialist advice in particular areas of law may simply not be accessible to people who need it (distance, travel costs, etc.). His view was that ‘access to justice has become increasingly more difficult for many people’ as a result of a ‘terribly bureaucratic system that is more interested in processes than outcomes’. Opportunities for collaboration with private firms were inherently limited then, in his view.

A Law Centre staff member who had previously worked in the private sector commented in similar vein, that there were advantages to collaboration with private sector firms, as long as the limits were also recognised. In her view ‘there are some good things about working in the private sector... because it’ s profit driven it has to be very very efficient’ and ‘I think that Law Centres can learn from that private practice’. She recognised that this wasn’t a view that was necessarily shared with other Law Centres though. ‘Historically it’s been seen as a bit of a ‘them and us’ situation... with some competition. But I think we’re working much better together now’. She went on to refer to one of the potential fears amongst Law Centres about whether working more closely with private firms ‘might make them turn into one’. ‘Actually there are ways of doing things... it’s about taking the best (practice)’ and applying this to Law Centres, she reflected.

There were then a number of instances of different types of positive collaborations with the private sector. For example, one Law Centre had a partnership with a private practice which involved solicitors giving advice on areas that the Law Centre didn’t cover. The interviewee explained that ‘It’s a good and positive arrangement that benefits the community’ and reciprocally the work with the Law Centre was part of that firm’s approach to social

90 responsibility. In reflecting on this more broadly the interviewee felt that Law Centres could also develop other partnerships and still keep their local roots. These were ‘difficult times’ but this was also an ‘opportunity’ and ‘an impetus to change’. ‘You can’t go on delivering services as we did in the 1980s’ in any case. We do need to be optimistic about ourselves and our ability to meet the challenges of the twenty first century’.

In one city, the Law Centre manager described how they had come to be in a delivery partnership with an established private firm of solicitors and the CAB. He explained that before the partnership was established they would have regarded each other as competitors and that ‘under normal circumstances we wouldn’t have looked at each other’. In this new and more challenging context, however, they could see the benefits of collaborative approaches. He also mentioned selecting potential partners as involving looking at who had a good reputation in specific fields. They each had areas of specialism but between the three partners, they covered the full range of provision at each centre. So, for example, the Law Centre was delivering welfare benefits provision at the private solicitors’ offices and the CAB offices and the CAB was providing debt advice at the Law Centre. He commented, in conclusion, that ‘it’s been a success: each of us provides a full service in each centre’.

In explaining the rationale for this particular partnership, the Law Centre manager said that he had looked to identify the Law Centre’s nearest competitors and then proceeded to explore ways in which they could collaborate rather than compete with each other. Before the tendering process was completed, the three partners had signed a memorandum of agreement. Once they had won the contract, they then developed a more formal partnership agreement. The partners went to regular meetings and increasingly co-operated on a range of related issues too. There was ‘additional value for us all’, in his view, with the scope for developing further forms of collaboration, for the future.

In summary, then, whilst there have been powerful pressures towards increasing competition, on the contrary this has been far from representing the whole story. The following case studies provides more detailed accounts of positive forms collaboration that have been developed as alternative strategies, Together they illustrate proactive ways of coping, developing strategically planned services to meet clients’ need holistically, rather than engaging in increasing conflict and competition, in response to current challenges.

91 CASE STUDIES

As the Introduction has already explained, the research in its second stage focused on a selected sample of areas nationally (8 areas) where the aim was to build a deeper understanding of the work of Law Centres from varying perspectives, taking account of the contexts and localities in which their staff and volunteers operated. This involved interviews with stakeholders from other advice agencies, local authorities and private solicitors. Through this we encountered some powerful examples of collaborative approaches that we have chosen to present through a selection of case studies, illustrating the tendencies towards collaborative ways of working despite the countervailing pressures towards increasing competition. Whilst it is clear that each area has specific geographical and historical contexts, the case studies may also illustrate some more general features of the processes, issues and benefits involved in developing a more joined up approach to the provision of advice services. There would, in addition, seem to be some potential implications in relation to questions of ethos and values in Law Centres and other public services more generally.

Bristol

The Advice Network was a 3-year project managed by the Law Centre on behalf of a loose network, Advice Centres for Avon (ACFA). This covered the geographical areas of Bristol, North Gloucestershire and Somerset and has been running since the mid 1980s but has grown over the years to having 20- 40 member agencies across three counties. 4 It provides a number of activities and services including a monthly meeting and a mailing list, sharing information, social policy work and in-house training for agencies. One of the Advice Network staff explained that ‘around 4 years ago the agencies collectively recognised that there were so many changes on the horizon for the advice world that ACFA wouldn’t be able to respond to them all just putting the voluntary time into it that people had put into it over the years’. It had been primarily driven by a few workers in key agencies who had given their time voluntarily.

So they fundraised for three posts and were fortunate to gain funding for all three, with two funded by the Big Lottery and one by the Baring Foundation. Whilst there was some cross-over between roles, the posts each had specific areas of work, which included building relationships with funders, developing collaborative work, consortia bidding, and building a library resource of common policies and procedures. The Advice Network has done a great deal of work around getting the agencies to work together better, for example with regards to campaigning. An interviewee explained that ‘The initial idea behind the network was to expand and improve services, whereas in reality between the funding application being drafted and the job starting we’ve had the credit crunch, the financial collapse, the great recession and the subsequent funding

4 The areas covered by the Network do not correspond, except in the case of Bristol, to local authority areas.

92 cuts that are starting to come through, so we are now in a more “protect and survive” situation so the focus of the project has changed’. One interviewee compared Bristol to both Nottingham and Coventry in that there were a variety of grass roots agencies involved in all of these as well as national agencies. Likewise in Bristol there seemed to be clarity about the services and catchment areas of the various agencies, with some serving specific communities (e.g. Somali) and others, such as the Law Centre, offering city wide specialist legal advice. Collectively these presented a relatively joined-up and cohesive map of advice services.

Bristol was one of the pilots for CLACs, (the LSC initiative to promote more joined-up approaches, as summarised in chapter two). But the local authorities then involved (Bristol City Council and South Gloucestershire) were apparently unfavourably disposed towards this initiative because of the potential ‘damage to community control and accountability’ in their view. It would, ironically, also potentially reduce value for money, it was suggested, because it would reduce local voluntary inputs and reduce leverage from other sources, according to one interviewee from the Law Centre.

Historically there has been active engagement in Bristol between the advice sector and the local authority. An interviewee described this, saying ‘we’ve been really lucky’ adding that the local authority recognised the value of the work they do. Whilst this positive relationship existed before the Advice Network project, it had been consolidated as a result of it, it was suggested. One of the Advice Network staff explained ‘what we’ve managed to do is to codify it a bit more and focus it a bit more and we’ve been able to spend a lot of time meeting with individual council officers and councillors’. The first six months of the project was spent doing this and promoting the full extent of the work that the advice agencies really do. He added ‘while the advice agencies had the capability to do the work we have done I’m not sure they had the capacity’ without funding for dedicated posts. Under the previous funding arrangements the agencies had different targets, and were measuring different outputs and so one of the first issues that the Advice Network addressed was to go through a consultation process with the agencies and discussions with the local authority to ask ‘what are the most useful things we can measure?’ For example the CAB was measuring every single query while the Law Centre might have one single case that might take six months to resolve. They asked ‘how do you quantify those two different things?’ So they have managed jointly to agree the same measure for all of the agencies. This has helped to build a clearer picture of the advice needs and services across the city. More consistently recording their work has involved each client having a unique number, but they also record cases where some follow-up work is required by the agency, as well as one-off advice.

One of the significant findings that has arisen from this process has been that a huge amount of advice, particularly ‘brief’ advice (that might simply be signposting someone as to where they could get the specific advice they needed) was previously unrecorded. The Advice Network has shared this system with funders and other agencies. They would also like to try to evidence how much time was actually being saved through operating this kind of service.

It has been a challenging time in terms of changes to commissioning, however. The LSC had been pushing for joint commissioning but the local authority had resisted this as they were ‘very aware of the needs of the network of advice provision and wanted to capacity build the sector before this new commissioning approach was implemented.’ Their view was that they had a self-grown advice network in the city which ‘seems to work’ operating on two interlinked levels; the bottom layer was the local advice agencies and then the upper level was made up of the bigger agencies, including the Law Centre, which have had a wider area, city or regional reach. Therefore any changes or efficiencies needed to be carefully brokered with the involvement of all the different agencies.

The Advice Network has been seen as really useful for both sides as a liaison system, being especially valuable in relation to the commissioning process changes. Both parties have used the Advice Network staff to help work out what would be best all round. Notably one interviewee said that both sides (i.e. the local authority and advice agencies) were happy not to be right as long as the result was about ‘what’s best’ for communities overall. Importantly through the collective work undertaken, the Advice Network was able to evidence and demonstrate what was working most effectively and responsively to need. This information has better enabled council officers to be able to go back to the local authority and make the case for their recommendations with regards to re-commissioning and funding.

For the local authority this approach required a strong commitment to the advice sector underpinned by a long process of work. As a local authority representative said ‘The processes involved in moving to a commissioning approach took two years to develop and set up. There was a huge amount involved in this.’ They had ‘to look at what we had’, the legal implications, and risks, and decide whether they could look at a competitive grants process. They also consulted with the advice agencies at various stages. The interviewee from the local authority commented ‘because we worked with the sector and the advice network and we went to consultation with the sector on our needs analysis and our proposals, it was a lengthy process.’ Inevitably this was difficult at times and ‘there had been some friction’ but ‘there has been a real change through this process and the Advice Network has really helped’, this respondent concluded. She added that ‘it feels far more like a partnership now rather than us and them’. All of the providers had their own identity and their individual take on this, ‘which is one of the things that makes it an interesting and vibrant sector’, as well as a sector that had really developed through this process.

As part of the local authority review they had undertaken a needs analysis. Through this they had identified geographic areas where there were gaps, for example in the east of city, and also where there were gaps for particular groups and communities. There were, as a result, specific recommendations relating to these. The local authority had asked the commissioned services to make the points of access clearer for clients and to have ‘one front end’. There were different routes for people accessing advice services. ‘It’s quite informal at the moment and we would like to make this better....’. Whilst this was the

94 aspiration of the commissioning process they recognised that it would take time. Also it was acknowledged that it might not still be so appropriate, however, given that they were subsequently facing other financial pressures. As a council officer commented ‘We were meant to have economies of scale through our commissioning but when funding is being cut from other sources, this is difficult’. The context has been one of continuing flux and challenge. As one interviewee explained ‘We are expecting to see increases in things like discrimination cases as the most vulnerable are hit’. So the focus has needed to shift in response to increasing funding pressures concurrent with greater demands for advice services.

Greater collaboration across the sector has proved to be positive in relation to securing funding collectively, though, an increasingly important outcome in the current context. There have been a number of examples of this already in the recent past. The benefits of collaboration for the range of advice agencies with regards to legal aid were clear, for example, as the only agency that could have perhaps stood alone and still won an LSC contract was the Law Centre. Building this type of collaborative network has taken a huge amount of time and effort but trust has grown (and has had to), and the end results have been positive. An interviewee described the benefits of collaboration in relation to local authority funding, for example: ‘The same thing happened with the Bristol City Council pot of money and commissioning where much to our surprise....nobody overbid. Everybody just agreed to bid for what they had had the previous year. So the local authority was very pleased as it received separate bids but these were complementary and showed collaboration. They had to be seen to be running a competitive process but because of the collective approach of the agencies, they didn’t have to make decisions between organisations.’ As another interviewee concluded ‘I think the way forward is collaboration’ and this was important with regards to funders. The local authority interviewee felt they would be far more vulnerable if this was not the case.

Most importantly, collaboration promoted a focus on clients rather than agencies, and the impacts that their services were having for them. As another interviewee added, the positioning of Law Centres was vital, sitting ‘within an advice centre network within their communities’, and in Bristol they do this ‘really well’.

Coventry

An advice partnership was established in Coventry in 2005. This partnership included the Law Centre, the CAB and Age UK along with a number of advice agencies from across the city, with a total of 10 members. Advice Services Coventry (ASC) developed a joint advice strategy and their overarching aim has been to ‘co-ordinate the delivery of advice services in the city’. As part of this it has been developing ways to work more effectively with the aim of creating a ‘seamless service pathways for clients.’

The original impetus for ASC came from the Law Centre and the CAB. There were two main drivers for this. The first was a recognition that the local

95 authority was likely to review advice services and that the sector needed to collaborate and co-ordinate its response to this. The second was a response to the Legal Services Commission changing the way in which contracts were given out which required organisations to work together (CLANs and CLACs). In Coventry they anticipated these changes although stakeholders reflected that they felt they were ‘lucky not to be a pilot’ in the event. Alongside this was the opportunity to bid for Neighbourhood Renewal funding and, later, for the Big Lottery Fund specific funding stream for advice which required partnerships to bid. One interviewee described these drivers as ‘a carrot and a stick’. It was also recognised that the ASC initiative importantly had the advantage of the local authority being very supportive of their working together.

Following the lead of the Law Centre and the CAB, the smaller community agencies got on board, and were motivated, it was suggested, by wanting a voice in the wider partnership and by growing awareness that they might otherwise be isolated from developments. They had been working together for 6 years by the time of this study. As an interviewee explained, this had involved taking ‘slow steps’ adding that this type of partnership ‘really has to be nurtured’. Here too, the importance of building relationships based on trust emerges as a significant factor.

ASC successfully gained Neighbourhood Renewal Funding and then Lottery funding to support its development of partnership working. This was then picked up by the Baring Foundation as ‘part of a raft of funding’, i.e. their funding of linked pieces of work. This funding also included Advice Services UK, the Advice Network in Bristol, the Law Centres Federation and others. In doing this the funders’ aim was to strengthen the independence of the advice sector, it was suggested. There had been a realisation that it was through partnership working that this could be best achieved as through partnerships more agencies could be effectively reached.

What was also identified as enabling this type of partnership was having a resourced coordinator role. As an interviewee stressed, the importance of this role being properly resourced and independent of any single agency had been a key factor. S/he felt that it would be very different if an advice partnership were trying to resource this themselves and therefore undertaking the work on top of their existing jobs. Another interviewee commented in a similar vein that the Baring Foundation funding had enabled them to ‘research and understand the services we provide better, and to look at advice services collectively. Initially we did some work on systems thinking to see if there was any waste in our systems, to see where savings could be made.’ This had been useful and agencies had applied this individually and across the partnership.

The manager of the Law Centre was also chair of ASC. This relied on the trust of the other agencies in being able to keep these roles distinct. The ASC was not formally constituted and so it had been necessary to channel the funding through another organisation. Funding had therefore been accessed and managed by the lead agency, but this agency had involved other partners in the delivery. There had been some mention of forming a consortium in order

96 to create a formal structure for applying for funding and managing delivery in the future however.

The agencies all ‘talk with one another’ in a way that they had not before ASC, it was pointed out, working together to improve the advice offer in Coventry for clients. This has meant collectively reviewing the types of advice services provided. The agencies differentiated between generalist and specialist advice with the smaller agencies offering mostly generalist advice, the Law Centre offering specialist advice and the CAB offering both as it was holding a Legal Services Commission contract for welfare and debt. The agencies therefore had to define ‘cut off points’ and clarify specialist and generalist roles. This meant that they became clear about the points at which they would ‘hand over’ and refer clients on to another agency. This was working well in both directions (i.e. generalist to specialist and vice versa). In this partnership they have therefore developed clearly defined roles and relationships, with each contributing expertise and geographical reach to provide a single access resource. As an interviewee commented, reflecting specifically on the role of the Law Centre within the advice network, ‘The role that they can play is that they can provide critical interventions at the right time, if you work closely with them you understand what they can do, it’s really helpful to the advice process’.

Through the Big Lottery funding they had also developed a joint electronic referral system which had been, in the view of one interviewee, ‘very successful’. This meant that the advice services in Coventry were effectively joined up and that an individual accessing any of the partner agencies at any point, was in fact accessing all of the advice services available, as they could be directly referred onto another agency if this was deemed necessary. They had an approximate average of 8-9 referrals a day between the partner agencies. So the advice organisations were collectively offering a seamless advice service, as an interviewee commented ‘We should be able to feed people into the right thing as a partnership’. Similarly another interviewee commented that ‘the systems needed to work from the customers’ point of view’.

Whilst the motivation for this had been in part because it was what the local authority wanted, there had been a strong push from the agencies themselves; an attitude of ‘let’s do the best that we can with it’. Their strategy has involved ensuring that people get the same response whichever agency they access and that this needs to be holistic and therefore able to identify further or underlying issues. This links to the Legal Services Commission ‘Causes of Action’ which recognises that while the immediate problem presented may be single, there are frequently related issues that also need addressing (i.e. clusters of related problems).

The establishment of the ASC has resulted in a number of benefits including:

• Regular meetings between managers from the partner agencies which has increased understanding of what they each do • Successfully bidding for almost £1, 000,000 in funding, which has increased advice service provision

97 • Joint training • Developing a collectively agreed plan for the future of advice services • Setting up effective referral systems between agencies • Appointing a dedicated ASC coordinator • Developing an ASC website as a single resource for information.

A representative of one of the advice agencies commented that Advice Services Coventry has ‘taken a lot of time, energy and effort from all of us’ and especially the Law Centre. This had not all been ‘straightforward’ and there had been some problems along the way. For example one interviewee felt that some of the agencies were less far-sighted and strategic in their approach than others. But the resulting partnership was seen as a pro-active vehicle for meeting current challenges. As one interviewee explained ‘yes it makes us stronger and we talk with a louder voice’ for example to the local authority. However the difficulty was that ‘if the funding goes then there is nothing that can really help’. Whilst as a partnership they had attracted over £1,000,000 in funding, this consisted of separate ‘pots’ of funding for specific pieces of work and as such would not sustain core services that were more difficult to fund and yet were foundational to all other aspects of service delivery.

The city council was currently reviewing advice services and until this was completed it was unclear what the funding situation would look like. There was some uncertainty about what it might mean, although the local authority had been clear about their support for the advice sector and consulted with them, giving some grounds for cautious optimism about the process and its possible outcome. For example one advice agency interviewee explained why they would work closely with the city council on this review, adding that they had a lot of useful information and data to contribute.

Interestingly a city council representative said that some of the work involved in reviewing advice services had been instigated by the Law Centre. They had been responsible for bringing people in the city together to work on a new strategy for how services should be delivered. They had ‘challenged us positively about how services are commissioned’, ‘they have said, for example, you need to review this, and stressed the importance of recognising duplication’. However, before they reached the point of developing a delivery model the local authority had been looking at how this might be done. Importantly they had been establishing baseline information to inform this. ‘What we want the advice agencies to do, is develop a delivery model’ in which ‘we are good commissioners and they are excellent providers’. The local authority interviewee added ‘We fundamentally believe that they are the best- placed people to do this’ and that they offer a complex range of services and ‘that’s where we have great confidence’ in their ability to deliver and to know how best to do this’.

The partnership approach to reviewing the commissioning and delivery of advice services across the city had been predicated on what the City Council representative described as historically ‘an excellent relationship. It’s very much about leadership, about being clear about the roles of the voluntary sector and our chief executive reinforces this, with the Law Centre having a

98 clear role.’ Interestingly he added that since the spending cuts there had been a greater realisation of the role and value of the voluntary and community sector.

There had been some frustration about the ‘inequitable spread of advice services’ which had been leaving ‘some big gaps’ across the city, though. The partner agencies had tried to respond to these gaps through developing fixed- term funding projects for outreach, for example, but when the funding for such short-term projects ended these types of initiative ceased. As a stakeholder explained, s/he felt that there needed to be a more consistent approach across the partnership to meeting needs. ‘What we’ve tried to do is take the initiative now and I think we’ve got enough trust from the City Council now for us to review ourselves and then make proposals to them which is a really good thing and if they say you have to make 15% savings we will, I think, have some say in how they should be made.’ The only difficulty is when we come down to deciding what the advice model will look like, it’s going to be difficult agreeing that if some organisations lose out and some do better.’

A number of interviewees mentioned the importance of the relationships between individuals from the different agencies and that there were people who had been key in creating ASC and being able to bring all of the partners together. There were strong organisational relationships which were further enhanced by key individuals. As one person commented ‘it’s about leadership and organisational ethos’, adding that it had been the combination of these two elements that had been crucial in terms of the Law Centre and its pivotal role with regards to the ASC network.

Nottingham

In 2006 a group of not-for-profit advice organisations (originally 9 subsequently 7) formed the Advice Nottingham (AN) umbrella organisation. This included the Law Centre, CAB, Shelter and other advice agencies. Whilst there had been some collaboration before this, the formation of this network was initiated by the organisations themselves, in response to anticipated changes. The local authority (Nottingham City Council) was reviewing how it contracted with the advice agencies, all of which it part-funded. Initially the city council was part of this group but further down the line the relationship changed and they became seen as partners ‘but on the outside’. The fact that the Council valued and supported the advice agencies and involved them in reviewing and reconfiguring services was regarded as fundamental by those interviewed.

Advice Nottingham successfully applied for funding from the Big Lottery Fund in order to develop their collaborative partnership which, as one interviewee explained ‘enabled us to come to the position we’re now in’. The move towards collaboration had been partly motivated by the fact that these organisations anticipated that funding preferences were for one supplier rather than for a number of smaller individual organizations acting as providers. As another

99 interviewee explained that they wanted to position themselves to be ‘ahead of the game’.

This was initially a difficult process in that they were very different organisations and they were protective about their own groups, services and clients. They had previously been in the position of competing for funding, too, and so this was a new approach for them. They were also all very independent organisations so the process had been one that had taken time in order to build up trust and understanding of the other organisations involved. Part of this process required identifying common purposes and ways in which they wanted to collectively work. An interviewee described there being a ‘real wariness’ at this stage. But this had gradually changed and ‘it was a wonderful thing that we did’, from this interviewee’s perspective, as they had become collectively supportive of each other – this was described as being really good for their sector.

There had been further points of difficulty to address in the process and at various times the network had sought external expertise, for example in exploring what type of legal structure to adopt. They had also engaged a consultant to assist them in identifying the core values which led to the development of an advice strategy for Nottingham, based upon these shared values and ethos. The importance of shared ethos and values emerges as a significant factor, then, both in this case study and in the other case studies in this chapter.

These kinds of initiatives were also made possible through securing additional funding to work through the processes involved. The organisations had to negotiate a balance between the independence and individuality of their organisations and collective and strategic approaches. They became better able to respond to funding opportunities as a result however, particularly as their advice services were able to build upon cross-cutting funding themes such as crime, education or health. It had been important for them to evidence collectively how the provision of advice could contribute to these different areas, thereby better promoting their work.

Over five years on they had reached the point where collectively they considered themselves to be a well-established organisation. The Advice Nottingham consortium had a Board made up of representatives from each of the 7 member agencies as well as some independent members. The advantages had been many and those cited included:

• Not being isolated • The support they gave each other • Increased opportunities • They shared training staff and volunteers • They negotiated their contracts together and • They worked collectively on funding strategies and bids.

The collaboration had also enabled them, with the council, to identify gaps in provision. In 2009 the city council had asked them to adopt a systems

100 thinking approach. Through this they identified gaps in delivery, as well as areas where potentially efficiencies might be made. Historically the agencies each have had specific areas of delivery, relating to both services and geography. They had jointly looked at the gaps in provision (areas, groups, types of service, etc.) and then looked at the provision and numbers of staff that would be needed to address these for the council. Whilst this had been useful it had also taken time and resources, however, and slowed other areas of Advice Nottingham development, for example the website.

One of the strongest messages that came back to them through their systems thinking work was that people particularly valued the fact that they were ‘treated with respect’ by the advice agencies, once again emphasizing the importance of collaboration based upon shared values and ethos.

One interviewee from a stakeholder agency commented that ‘the contribution that the Law Centre has played in Advice Nottingham has been tremendous”. She added that while prior to the establishment of AN they had had some contact with the Law Centre, this had notably increased. This had meant increasing referrals as well as undertaking jointly delivered contracts. The Law Centre had been able to bring in LSC contracts to partners because of its range of legal expertise, for example. The Law Centre was a central service provider overall whilst some of the agencies involved in the network operated in more specific areas and communities. There was a view amongst stakeholders that the Law Centre had strongly supported these smaller organisations ‘believing that their local knowledge is vital and should not be lost’. Another interviewee commented in similar vein that ‘they have spent so much time working with us, they see the value we provide’ adding that it was important not to ‘ignore the human aspect of it. Everybody needs to feel involved and feel they can have an impact.’ The Law Centre was also regarded as being very supportive of the other organizations more generally, offering advice on issues such as staff, policies and procedures, for example.

The Law Centre had also taken a lead in joint campaigning including actively participating in the ‘Justice For All’ campaign. This leadership role was partly taken because they had good regional and national links, that enabled them to do this effectively. In this role ‘they were acting as advocates for justice’ and the other agencies fed into this. One of the related advantages of Advice Nottingham had been that they have ‘been able to demonstrate impact on advice services across Nottingham due to cuts’ as they had collectively collated this data. ‘We are very worried by the impacts of cuts and changes to Law Centre funding - Justice for All is part of this’. Through this campaign their profile had increased and the Law Centre, in leading this, had developed good relationships with MPs for example and with relevant committees in London.

In summary the Advice Nottingham consortium:

• Worked closely with the council to explore best practice. As part of this AN had looked at other areas nationally to identify good practice examples with which to inform their own practices; • Liaised directly with the council at the highest levels;

101 • Created a joined-up service delivery structure consisting of core advice services providing triage, general advice and casework services; and • Brought the partner organisations into closer working practices which included better knowledge about what was available thereby increasing their ability to better inform clients.

The Advice Nottingham consortium had been continuing to grow and develop. There were many instances of close collaborative work that had improved services as Advice Nottingham had prioritised working to create seamless access for clients. The consortium therefore planned to obtain funding for one telephone number, with internet access to advice services and an on-line appointment system. ‘If somebody contacts a member of AN, it shouldn’t matter to them who they’ve contacted. It should then be the responsibility of AN, to make sure they get to the right place.’ Part of this would be the development of their website to provide a single point of reference for people that would cover all of the services of the AN partners.

One of the Legal Services Commission’s requirements had been quality assurance for all of the partners. The Advice Nottingham was working to develop common policies and procedures across the partners which would further enhance their collaboration. Other priorities included developing a common training programme as well as common standards, reporting and monitoring systems. The network would also aim to utilise its collective knowledge of the city to look at developing services in areas that currently lacked a service.

Advice Nottingham was also looking at future options for income generation including how they might sell some of their services, for example their debt advice service, through companies to their employees. Benefits advice was also a possibility, as some working people were eligible for various kinds of benefits but did not necessarily know this. They were also looking at training provision, for example for people to run workshops in prisons and give advice to groups.

In summary then, these case studies illustrate the potential benefits of holistic, collaborative approaches. Despite the countervailing pressures towards increasing competition, a number of Law Centres were demonstrating alternative ways forward, with Law Centres playing pivotal roles, building networks across agencies and sectors, to provide more comprehensive services for those in need of advice. New technologies were being deployed, to underpin these more collaborative approaches, led on the basis of shared values and mutual trust.

102

Chapter Seven: Public service modernisation, recommodification and time: time pressures, time wasted and time valued

Previous chapters have discussed key aspects of the Carter Reforms as these have been impacting upon Law Centres, their ethos, values and practices. The central issue, for this chapter, relates to the resulting pressures on time. The chapter begins by summarising the impact of the introduction of the unified contract and the fixed fee system, reducing the time available to be spent with each individual client. This contrasts with the increased time required for administration under the new system. The chapter concludes by suggesting alternative ways of considering the value of time and outcomes in legal advice.

The fixed fee and the new organisation of working time

As previous chapters have already outlined, in October 2007, most areas of Legal Aid changed from a system based on hourly rates to a fixed fee system, no longer paying legal aid providers according to the hours spent per case. Instead the LSC calculated an average amount of time necessary to finish cases in particular areas of law. Specifically, the fixed fee scheme meant that the providers of legal advice, such as Law Centres, were being paid between £160 and £250 per case, depending on the area of law (employment, debt, welfare benefit, housing, etc.). The only exception to the fixed fee scheme was the provision for ‘exceptional’ cases – defined as cases requiring more than three times the value of the fixed fee for that particular area of law. In such cases there was extra funding from the LSC.

The aim behind the fixed fee system was that providers of legal advice should start to act in more ‘businesslike’ ways, balancing the cases that could require more time than the fixed fee provided for with a higher number of short cases that could be closed in less time. Put differently, the fixed fee system incentivised Law Centres to spend less time per case, in general, and to close cases in a timely way, in order to generate profits that could potentially be used to balance out the additional time taken by cases that would take longer. In this way, the introduction of the fixed fee system not only aimed at increasing (time) efficiency, although it was intended to do this. But the fixed fee system also fitted into a wider strategy to promote market-type mechanisms and approaches more generally.

The introduction of the fixed fee has had major ramifications in practice. Law Centres have been very dependent on this as a source of income, approximately half of their funding coming from the Legal Services Commission through Legal Aid contracts 5, the other main funders being local authorities, the Big Lottery Fund, London Councils and, in the past, the Equality Human Rights Commission (NEF 2009: 3). The impacts have

5 http://www.lawcentres.org.uk/lawcentres/detail/history-and-funding-of-law-centres/ [accessed on 04.12.2011]

103 therefore been very significant, and highly contentious, as the research has illustrated.

In fact, many of those interviewed considered that the introduction of fixed fees had not increased efficiency, as it was intended to do, but had instead increased pressures at work and left many Law Centres uncertain about their future viability. The fixed fee had implemented an increasingly Taylorised time regime, in which the control and management of working time was taken away from Law Centre workers. Instead they had to comply with the pre- established amount of time that was allocated to each particular type of case. As chapter five has already suggested, this had led to a situation in which Law Centre workers increasingly felt that they were having to adopt what some described as a ‘factory approach’, meaning that they felt that they were being required to operate more like a production line. A lawyer at one of the Law Centres, for example, said that due to the fixed fee scheme, they had to implement ‘more of a conveyor belt approach’, which she contrasted with the more holistic approach to each individual client’s needs, the approach that she thought was more appropriate for the way in which Law Centres should operate. The pressure to comply with the fixed fee system and to ‘make it work’ while maintaining their ethos of providing a holistic service to their clients, put many Law Centres staff into a situation where they found themselves facing the dilemmas involved in balancing the requirements for financial viability with the quality of their service. This was mainly due to the fact that it was hardly possible for Law Centres to make the fixed fee work, in the view of many of those interviewed, leaving many Law Centres underfunded with some having had to close down in recent years. As one of the workers interviewed commented, reflecting on the future uncertainty that this funding scheme had on the Law Centre as well as on people’s personal working lives, ‘every year you don’t know if it’s going to be your last’.

Underfunding was also an important issue identified in the survey. As chapter four has already explained, the overwhelming majority of respondents ‘strongly agreed’ with the statement that ‘standardised fixed fees underfund the complex debt, housing, employment, education, mental health and community care cases that Law Centre focus on’. This result was valid across all age groups, ethnicities and positions within Law Centres. There were, however, some differences in the ways that Law Centres responded on the issues of (under)funding relating to the extent to which they depended on funding through legal aid and alternatively the extent to which they received funding from other organisations (e.g. local councils). Those Law Centres that were entirely dependent on funding through legal aid contracts and whose cases thus all had to comply with the regulations of the fixed fee scheme, more frequently reported funding problems than those that were receiving funding from other organisations or from local councils (other funders generally providing funding for a whole range of legal services provided to local communities). As a result, the time pressures on Law Centres with additional sources of funding were correspondingly less severe.

Many of the interviewees commented on recent changes in the funding system and in particular the tensions and dilemmas that the introduction of the fixed fee scheme involved in terms of time pressures, particularly for those involved

104 with Law Centres that were more exclusively dependent upon the fixed fee scheme for their funding. As already explained, this required Law Centre workers to keep to strict time limits and close cases in a timely way in order to stay financially viable. This meant that an increasing number of people working in Law Centres felt that they were effectively being required to do unpaid overtime or finish cases before they were properly resolved. As a caseworker noted for example, ‘there wasn’t enough time to do everything that needed to be done’ going on to say that these time pressures left no ‘time available for other aspects of the work, such as working with the community’.

A solicitor from a Law Centre similarly argued that the pressures to make the fixed fee system work meant that people had to work a lot harder, come in earlier in the morning, stay longer in the afternoon and therefore work longer hours altogether. These pressures had also resulted in some of the people interviewed considering leaving their Law Centre and trying to find work in another sector, despite evidence that indicated a continuing commitment to delivering legal advice to those who could not afford to pay for advice privately. Another Law Centre worker expressed this in a similar vein when he described the transformation of his conditions of work caused by increasing time pressures. Over the last years he had to ‘put in late nights to get things done’. ‘You can see cracks’, he went on to say, emphasising the emotional and physical strains of these changes caused by the introduction of the fixed fee scheme.

Despite their efforts to comply with the new LSC requirements whilst maintaining their ethos and values, there was widespread concern both amongst Law Centre workers as well as among other stakeholders as to whether the quality of their work and their service was suffering. For example, a young caseworker commented that the time pressures made it impossible to ‘spend enough time preparing representation’ and that therefore ‘the amount of time we are spending with the clients is really limited’. Despite her commitment to the ethos of comprehensive legal advice, these pressures and the increasingly precarious conditions of work made it impossible for her to develop personal future plans within the Law Centre.

Time pressures in Law Centres were also reported from stakeholders working together with them. For instance, a stakeholder from the advice sector underscored the pressures involved in trying to make the fixed fee system work whilst maintaining the original Law Centre ethos. She mentioned concerns about how the work of Law Centres had to become ‘more business- like’, meaning that they had to see a minimum amount of clients a day to make the work financially viable, regardless of the type or complexity of cases. While this approach may have been feasible in some cases, there were many cases where standardised time-slots did not work in her view. As a worker in another Law Centre commented, this was particularly true for cases that involved ‘working in the community or when you are dealing with issues around violence, homelessness or immigration (…) you have to go beyond that half an hour slot’. She went on to argue that in these cases it was necessary that ‘you give time to people in distressed situations and that was always one of the strengths within the voluntary sector. I hope that we do not lose this’ she concluded.

105 Despite the difficulties and tensions many Law Centres have been facing many of those interviewed showed a high degree of commitment to the ethos of providing justice for all and who tried to adjust the Law Centre to the current funding situation. The director of one of the Law Centres, for instance, illustrated this by explaining that she needed to work longer hours which she could not claim back in order to keep the Law Centre afloat. As chapter eight explores in more detail, there were many instances in which people’s individual efforts to ‘make a change’ and maintain a quality service, had resulted in them working excessive hours which in turn had been affecting their health and work-life balance.

Another major shortcoming of the fixed fee system that was raised in the interviews was that payment for cases could not be claimed until the work had been completed, which meant that ‘disbursements have to be paid out of reserves’, as one Law Centre worker commented, reserves which were, however, typically very limited. This had caused substantial cash-flow problems and posed serious challenges to the financial viability of some Law Centres. As already mentioned, financial pressures under the fixed fee scheme had further incentivised caseworkers to finish cases more rapidly just as there were a number of interviewees who stated that the fixed fee had also encouraged legal aid staff to cherry pick cases that needed less time and could therefore yield profits more readily and rapidly.

As chapter four explained, the survey contained an item on ‘cherry picking’ of cases. The overwhelming majority (89% in total) of respondents ‘broadly agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ with the statement that ‘standardised fixed fees encourage Law Centres to ‘cherry pick’ particular types of cases that can be resolved relatively simply’. Practices such as ‘cherry picking’ however, would undermine a fundamental ethos of Law Centres - to provide access to justice in particular to those who could not afford legal advice or representation from private solicitors. A Law Centre worker commented on precisely this dilemma, showing how the commitment to the ethos of providing access to justice to vulnerable groups in society was running counter to the economic sustainability of the Law Centre. He stated that ‘due to our work practices we don’t cherry pick cases’ adding that ‘We have problems turning people away’. But he also reflected that this ‘could be our downfall’.

Time efficiency versus administrative time

Efforts to use time more efficiently as the fixed fee scheme intended have been described as having often been contradicted by the new accountability system of the unified contract. A considerable number of the Law Centre workers that were interviewed commented that ever since the introduction of the fixed fee, the administrative requirements had increased considerably. In other words then, the unified contract resulted in people having to spend more time with administrative tasks that were necessary to comply with the regulations of the fixed fee.

As a result, it was pointed out in many interviews, the new requirements of the Legal Services Commission were leaving less time to actually focus on the legal

106 work of Law Centres. For example, one of the staff at a Law Centre (who was also responsible for parts of the administration) claimed that the ‘LSC requirements pose major challenges’, which increased her workload to an extent that her ‘job actually needed eight days a week’ while she was paid for two days (a week). The new administrative requirements were particularly challenging to those who did not have experience of working in the private sector before, where more rigorous systems for accounting for time were already the norm. There were also several interviewees who mentioned that ‘there are frequent changes to the procedures’ as to the way in which working time needs to be documented and recorded in order to comply with the funding system.

One solicitor, who had been working at a Law Centre for twenty seven years and then left due to the unbearable time pressures (‘I worked an average of thirteen hours a day and at least one day at the weekend’), commented that when she had arrived at the Law Centre ‘we were pretty efficient when only 20% of the Law Centre resources went into admin’. She went on to say that by the time she left the Law Centre she had needed to spend 50 or 60 % of her time in order to cope with the additional administrative burdens and the ‘very, very complex financial arrangements’, which ‘was utterly demoralising’. This experience was shared by a number of other Law Centre workers, who had become disillusioned with the LSC requirements and the ‘totally unwieldy structure’, which for many meant that ‘a significant part of people’s working time is now spent on doing tremendous amounts of paper work’. The pressures of the increased amount of time necessary for administrative tasks was intensified by the risk of not getting paid by the LSC if forms were not filled in correctly. One of the Law Centre workers exemplified this by telling the story of a case where she had missed off the date when filling in the Legal Aid certificate and as a result some two months’ worth of work went unpaid.

These findings of the interviews were confirmed by the quantitative survey, which asked Law Centre workers whether they thought that the unified contract system placed increased administrative burdens on Law Centres. Over two thirds of the respondents (70%) ‘strongly agreed’ and more than a fifth ‘broadly agreed’ (92 % in total) with the statement that the introduction of the unified contract and specifically the fixed fee scheme had increased the time spent on administration. The administrative burdens were reported to be particularly high when Law Centres were dealing with more complex cases for which they needed more time and thus wanted to claim higher fees under the ‘exceptional case’ framework; this disincentivised Law Centres from engaging with the more time-consuming and difficult cases. Put briefly then, whilst intended to increase efficiency and reduce the time spent per case, the fixed fee scheme was widely considered, on the contrary, to have increased the time that Law Centres needed to spend on administrative tasks in order to record the ways in which they spent their time and thus left less remaining time for actually doing legal work.

Apart from the increasing time necessary for administrating Law Centres, many of the people interviewed – implicitly or explicitly – criticised the idea of what time efficiency actually meant in the context of the work that Law Centres were doing. They suggested that the idea of time efficiency, a central

107 concern of the Carter reforms and the following introduction of the unified contract, could not simply be equated to a quantitative understanding of time. Put differently, a reduction of time spent per case may reduce costs in the short term, but may prove to be inefficient in the long term as the outputs required by the fixed fee scheme may have run counter to the (long-term) outcomes sought by Law Centres and by legal aid more generally. Tensions between the outputs necessary to receive enough funding through legal aid contracts and more holistic and sustainable (long-term) outcomes were recurring themes throughout the interviews. These tensions usually arose in relation to the ethos of Law Centres, such as the ambition to provide access to justice to all, to undertake preventative work, to engage with their local communities and thus to empower people to become more independent.

The fact that Law Centres were operating in ways that were not focusing solely on the number of cases finished per month but rather on the quality of the legal advice they were providing was evidently highly appreciated by clients of Law Centres. A number of the staff interviewed gave examples of how their clients’ lives were turned around precisely because they were approached in a holistic and respectful way. A volunteer, who had recently joined a Law Centre and had been working in a private practice before, commented on the differences between the two. While in private practice there was a focus on making money, this interviewee explained, whilst the Law Centre was able to offer advice to people who were often in very difficult situations in their lives and would not be able to get advice from anywhere else. He particularly underlined the emotional professionalism that Law Centres were providing in dealing with people who may be facing interrelated financial and social problems by offering people the necessary amount of time to establish trust and personal relationships. Private law firms in his view, as he went on to say, ‘wouldn’t put up with stuff like that’.

Time for building relationships

The importance of personal relationships in the provision of advice in public services has been noted in a study by the Council on Social Action. In the publication Time well-spent , the authors point out the transformative nature of personal advice relationships and argue that time spent on building good relationships and listening to clients’ problems is not simply time well-spent but also makes sense from a time-efficiency point of view. They state that ‘it (spending time with clients) is not a luxury. Rather, it is instrumental to achieving a quality outcome and value for money’ (Council on Social Action 2009: 30).

As a solicitor, who had been working both in private practice and in Law Centres, commented, she and her colleagues were ‘well aware of current tensions and dilemmas, including the tensions between the requirements of the funding on the one hand and respect for the client, giving the client sufficient time, on the other’. Moreover, these tensions were central to the ethos and values Law Centres had been upholding, which in many instances conflicted with the new funding regime of the unified contract. More precisely, there were a number of those interviewed who argued that there was not

108 enough time to focus on aspects such as doing preventative work, engaging in their local communities and doing policy work or bringing test cases to court with a view to changing existing policies. On the contrary, Law Centres needed to focus on casework, it was explained, as this was the only work that fitted the accountability system of the fixed fee and could thus generate income.

One of the volunteers who was interviewed also mentioned the particular tensions of balancing the ethos and values of the Law Centre with the temporal restrictions that the requirements of the fixed fee imposed, for cases with additional language issues: ‘We couldn’t do time limited appointments here. Because of the nature of the community we have here, English is not the first language of most people’ which means that ‘if you had twenty minutes with a client you wouldn’t get past “hello”. You would not be able to give them an effective service; the to and fro between interpreter and client takes time’, he concluded.

There were also numerous Law Centre workers commenting that ‘there were pressures to churn people through to manage the time pressures related to the fixed fee funding system, with less time to focus on the wider issues’, such as doing preventative or policy work. It is, however, exactly these wider aspects that were widely considered to make the work of Law Centres unique, assigning a central role to Law Centres in terms of engaging with social and economic questions that may have a much broader and long-term effect on society as a whole. In other words, the Taylorised model of measuring output in terms of cases finished, implemented with the Carter Reforms and particularly the fixed fee system, were based on a model of efficiency that did not fit the more holistic understanding of efficiency and value that Law Centres had been aiming to pursue.

Recent changes to Legal Aid and questions of value

Questions of value have become even more pressing after recent announcements that may take certain areas of law completely out of scope of Legal Aid funding, which could result in many of the Law Centres having to close down. In an article of the Law Gazette from the 3 rd of August 2011, Julie Bishop, director of the Law Centres Federation suggested that ‘18 of the 56 Law Centres nationwide were particularly susceptible to closure’ (Rayner and Baksi, 2011).

This climate of uncertainty for Law Centres has sparked discussions around questions of what value actually is (NEF Consulting 2008 and NEF Consulting 2010a) and how outcomes in advice can be measured (NEF Consulting 2010b) that take into account the outreach and preventative work Law Centres are doing. In a study conducted by the New Economics Foundation (NEF Consulting 2010a) on the question of what real value is the authors question the assumptions of efficiency made by current Legal Aid reforms. They argue that ‘the concept of efficiency and competition in service delivery’ (…) ‘isn’t necessarily compatible with best value over the longer term’ (Ibid: 6). In contrast to the commodified understanding of legal advice, i.e. ‘a commodity that can be consumed’, the authors propose that the holistic services that Law

109 Centres have been providing are ‘more consistent with a citizenship or social- change model of value’ (Ibid: 6). This understanding of value takes account of the preventative and outreach work that Law Centres have been undertaking. Although it is inevitably difficult to measure the precise value of the outcomes of Law Centres in financial terms, there have been attempts to do so, such as the NEF did in another study (NEF Consulting 2008).

This study shows how time spent on work, such as preventative work, public legal education or doing test cases, work currently not covered by legal aid, is time well-spent, even from a financial point of view (NEF Consulting 2008). The study, which takes a multi-stakeholder perspective, suggests that the socio-economic return of the work that Law Centres do is beneficial to society and saves cost and time in the long-term for a number of other institutions. Specifically, one of the cases considered in the study calculates the financial value of a Law Centre offering training in ‘how to prevent evictions’ to almost forty advice organisations in a borough of London. An evaluation of this ‘Possession Prevention Project’ shows that evictions were being prevented due to the training the organisations received. Considering the costs of evictions for different stakeholders involved, such as landlords or local councils, the study concludes that the cost of doing this project far outweighed 6 the potential costs for evictions, not to speak of the more far-reaching social and economic consequences of families or individuals having to leave their homes. The New Economics Foundation thus suggests a new definition of value, the so-called Social Return on Investment (SROI). This SROI-model 7 of value approaches the creation of value from a more holistic and social point of view as it tries to measure the impacts of social policies and preventative work instead of simply measuring economic outputs in terms of costs and prices.

The social value of Law Centres was also mentioned in interviews with several different stakeholders that were working together with Law Centres, such as CABs, local authorities and other advice agencies. Despite this awareness of the social value of Law Centres and in particular of the preventative work they were doing, however, there were concerns as to how the preventative approach could be integrated into the current funding system of the fixed fee. A considerable number of the stakeholders as well as Law Centre workers who were interviewed went on to say that this was also an issue of measurement and value. The quantification and measurement of social outcomes was not easily possible, however increasingly necessary and required for justifying public expenditure in some of the areas of work that were being undertaken by Law Centres or other providers of legal advice.

A project worker from an advice network similarly stated that Law Centres were in fact undertaking a lot of work that was saving time on a systemic 8

6 The study states that the savings ratio of this case is around 6. This means that for every pound invested in the training programme, a socio-economic value of £6 was generated. 7 Social Return on Investment (SROI) is an analytic tool for measuring and accounting for a much broader concept of value. It incorporates social, environmental and economic costs and benefits into decision making, providing a fuller picture of how value is created or destroyed. SROI is able to assign a monetary figure to social and environmental value which is created. For example, nef research on the value created by a training programme for ex-offenders revealed that for every £1 invested, £10.50 of social value was created. [http://www.neweconomics.org/projects/social-return-investment, last accesses 05.01.2012] 8 AdviceUK explored systems thinking for the advice sector. A discussion of findings was published in their report ‘It’s the System, Stupid! Radically Rethinking Advice ’ (AdviceUK 2008), available at

110 level. In particular in the advice networks that have been developed over recent years, Law Centres were seen as playing a crucial role, helping save time and money spent, referring clients to other agencies and/ or receiving referrals in turn. These collaborative ways of working were explored in more detail in chapter six.

Another stakeholder underscored the role of Law Centres in reducing the amount of time necessary for tribunals. The preparation of cases and the assistance Law Centres provided to clients - for example with helping to fill in papers correctly - reduced the amount of time and money spent on court proceedings. A stakeholder, reflecting in similar vein, mentioned the possible results if people did not have access to legal advice from Law Centres. He stated that ‘there was a risk that the courts could become clogged up, if people were not adequately represented’ and that there would be a lot of time wasted in cases where ‘papers would be sent back again and again’.

As already mentioned, the relationship between efficiency and time well-spent was particularly evident among those interviewed who spoke about the value of preventative work. Many of those interviewed stated that the measure of efficiency imposed by the new LSC requirements did not fit the preventative approach which most Law Centres were originally designed to address. The fact that preventative work was not funded, under the fixed fee scheme, did not only result in tensions as regards the holistic ethos of the work of Law Centres. This was even in conflict with the LSC’s own efficiency model, it was suggested. This was because preventative work could help to identify interrelated problems and thereby make it possible to intervene, more effectively, at an early stage. In the stakeholder interviews, an interviewee from an organisation that was providing funding for Law Centres spoke about their value as well as about the issue (and problem) of measuring this value. She stated that many of the people who consult Law Centres ‘might come in with a housing issue but you find out that there’s a health issue, there’s an education issue there, a whole raft of issues that the family is facing’. These issues, as she went on to say, with ‘a little bit of help at the beginning could save the local authority an awful lot of time and effort and money towards the end’. This type of approach, as she further explained, however, ‘is something that is not very easy to measure’.

As previous chapters have already indicated, although it may seem to be counterintuitive from the perspective of local authorities to fund Law Centres in order to pursue cases against them, there were some local authority stakeholders that underscored the importance of doing precisely this. A number of the stakeholders from London borough councils pointed to the preventative aspect of Law Centres’ work in this context, in particular for housing cases. Instances where Law Centres took up cases against local authorities were evident, for example, when families or individuals were being evicted from their homes. A local authority councillor illustrated his understanding of the Law Centres’ point of view in such cases explaining that ‘if there is no accommodation for an individual and their dependents, we are going to be forced to pick up pieces everywhere, which would cost far more in the long run’. Housing was an essential tool of social integration, he

111 concluded, and legal support for tenants could generate enormous savings by preventing homelessness or costly court proceedings.

The preventative approach to Legal Aid was contrasted with the type of approach that was predominant in private practice. A Law Centre worker, who had worked both in private practice and in a Law Centre, argued that in private practice there was a constant pressure to litigate, and then ‘get the money and close the case’. Law Centres had set out to operate in a different way to offer a broader range of services to their clients and communities, but the current funding system was pressurising Law Centres to operate in similar ways to private practice. ‘We’re being forced down this road’, which was ‘not in the client’s interests’, as another Law Centre worker explained. Another solicitor, from a different Law Centre, similarly illustrated the differences and tensions between doing preventative work and fulfilling the new requirements of the fixed fee scheme. Over recent years, she stated, ‘they (Law Centres) had become understandably focused upon fire-fighting rather than upon why fires were starting in the first place’.

As it has already been suggested, dealing with these pressures was stressful for those involved with Law Centres, whether they were involved as paid staff or as volunteers. In many ways the issue of time epitomises their dilemmas. Whose time was being valued? And how was value being measured in any case? The stresses that were being experienced, as Law Centre staff and volunteers responded to these questions and dilemmas, are discussed in more detail in the following chapter, together with some of the coping strategies that were being adopted, in turn.

112 Chapter Eight: Alienation and demoralisation or the social reproduction of continuing labours of love?

This chapter draws together evidence on the impact of these challenges and dilemmas for the individual members of staff and the volunteers involved with Law Centres. As it has already been suggested, one of the criticisms that has been levelled at New Public Management systems is that they presuppose negative views of human motivation, assuming that employees in general, and professionals more specifically, need the discipline of targets, imposed from above (Le Grand, 2003). As a result, critics have argued, target-type cultures actually risk alienating public service workers, undermining the very motivations and commitments that brought them into the public service professions in the first place.

There is, in addition, evidence from previous research to suggest that such motivations and commitments to the public service ethos may be deeply rooted in professionals’ own personal histories and identities (Hoggett et al, 2009). This can add to the dilemmas to be faced in the context of public service modernisation, dilemmas which may be experienced emotionally as well as in more practical ways. The term ‘emotional labour’ covers a range of meanings and usages, from varying perspectives. This could refer to employers’ demands that service workers such as air stewardesses should keep smiling ‘as though they really meant it’ to re-assure their passengers, constituting additional exploitation of the employees in question, it could be argued (Hochschild, 1983). But the term has also been applied to the emotional engagement of nurses, for example, giving of themselves emotionally as they care for seriously ill patients (Smith.1999). It is in this latter sense that the term has been used to understand the particular dilemmas faced by public service workers in the contemporary policy context (Hoggett et al, 2009).

The first part of this chapter builds upon earlier discussions in relation to Law Centres’ ethos and values, as outlined in chapter three, providing fuller accounts of people’s motivations. This leads into the discussion of the ways in which people’s motivations had been affected by the introduction of more marketised approaches to the provision of legal aid. As this section argues, the research provided evidence of considerable stress, including emotional stress and burn out, together with some evidence of alienation and demoralisation. But this was only part of the picture, as the penultimate section of this chapter demonstrates, on the basis of evidence from staff and volunteers alike. This leads into the final section, summarising the coping strategies which were being adopted and the ways in which the public service ethos was, or was not, being maintained and reproduced.

Motivations and values

As chapter three has already outlined, there was - unsurprisingly - considerable overlap between the ethos and values of Law Centres and the

113 motivations and values of those who worked in them, whether as paid staff or as volunteers. People chose to work in Law Centres because this chimed with their own values and commitments to facilitating access to justice for all. As one of those who responded to the survey commented, reflecting on his or her continuing involvement, the Law Centre ‘continues to reflect my core passion and drive by focussing on the principle of championing all who experience injustice – at any level – and by doing so giving people a chance to have their voice heard in society’.

Many of those who were interviewed made comparable comments. A number also went on to mention their own personal backgrounds, when explaining the strength of their motivation to engage with issues of social justice. As one management committee member/trustee commented, for instance, her father had been a vicar, so she had grown up with the norm of supporting all those who had come to their door seeking help and advice, including those with problems such as homelessness. There were similar references to the influences of parents from others whose home backgrounds were less directly touched by the types of problems that Law Centres address. For example a lawyer who described his own background as having been privileged (having been to a public school) referred to the importance of the influence of his mother who had always manifested empathetic concern for others, (eventually becoming a social worker). More directly, another lawyer explained that ‘my dad had been an advice worker in his career’ which awakened her interest in a legal career in the not-for-profit sector.

As chapter three has also explained some described their motivation in terms of their own commitments to social movements for social justice and anti- racism. As a lawyer with experience of Law Centres reflected, ‘my motivation for working in Law Centres was.. is bound up with my own biography’ going on to outline his experiences of squatting and defending those involved in squatting. As a result of working alongside the local Law Centre, he decided to pursue a legal career, seeing ‘the value of becoming a lawyer to provide legal services of this type’. In more formal political terms, a lawyer working in another Law Centre explained that she had always had an interest in becoming a lawyer, but not in commercial practice, given her interest in progressive politics including membership of the Labour Party, from her teens.

Others described the influence of more direct experiences of inequalities and disadvantages. A management committee member/ trustee (with a different Law Centre from the one cited above) reflected on his ‘whole life dealing with social justice’ as an active trade unionist whose own father had been blacklisted for trade union activities (taking up health and safety issues in the hot metal industry). For him, then, the issues that the Law Centre was taking up were ‘about a moral stance’ about ‘right and wrong’. Several other respondents mentioned their family backgrounds in similar ways – including the experience of having been with a parent on a picket line - experiences that had been central to their developing commitment to social justice, ‘working for the common good’ as one case worker expressed this, having explained that as a child he had taken sandwiches to his father on the picket line during the 1972 Miners Strike. Working for the Law Centre made him happy, he

114 added. ‘This is what I think I had been looking for... (through his own trade union work and through previous public service jobs): to try to help people.’

It was clear that for a number of those interviewed, their involvement with the Law Centre was central to their own identity and sense of self, in fact. As a lawyer the bulk of whose career had been in Law Centres reflected, ‘it (working in Law Centres) has become part of my self-image’. He went on to add that ‘if I went into private practice now I would be quite ashamed’, given the contrasts that he had himself experienced when working in the private sector for a short time, after qualifying. This personal identification was similarly demonstrated by a Law Centre worker who had been actively involved with setting up and working with a particular centre over a number of years. ‘This is my baby... I love it... it’s part of my life’ he commented, before adding that others felt similar levels of commitment (including working without pay, at one point, when funding had been temporarily withdrawn). A lawyer in another Law Centre 9 provided another example again, illustrating the ways in which the Law Centre was bound up with her own identity and sense of self. Explaining that ‘without a doubt’ she planned to continue with this type of work in the Law Centre, she went on to add that ‘I can’t think of another place where I could find work where I can be who I want to be’.

Motivation and Gender

Given earlier feminist research on gender, work and caring (Finch and Groves, 1983, Ungerson, 1990) the research included an analysis in terms of gender. Were women more focused upon caring and/or less focussed upon more traditionally male career trajectories for example? More generally, the law has evidently been an increasingly popular career choice for women, with women making up some 64% of students enrolling on relevant law degrees (compared with 45% of the total of solicitors on the roll in 2008) 10 Solicitors from ethnic minority backgrounds made up just over 10% of the roll, incidentally, although here too, the situation seemed to be changing with just over 30% from ethnic minority backgrounds enrolling at students. Progress was evidently being made. In terms of career trajectories to the most senior levels of the legal profession, there would still seem to be issues to be addressed in terms of equalities, however, with women forming under 8% of QCs at the same period.

The numbers of staff and volunteers from ethnic minority backgrounds in the survey was too small to provide statistically significant patterns. The number of women was far greater, with 56 responses out of the total of 107 responses being from women. But here too the numbers were smaller when broken down in terms of women’s different positions within Law Centres, as lawyers, case workers, administrators or receptionists for instance.

Examining the patterns overall, women’s responses differed very little, if at all, from men’s responses as it turned out though. There were only two tables

9 The Law Society http://juniorlawyers.law society.org.uk accessed 25/2/12

115 where there seemed to be some minor differences. One of these tables related to responses to the question about whether or not the Carter Reforms were leading to increasing competition, rather than collaboration between providers. Here women were rather less likely to think that this was the case – indicating perhaps that women were more committed to the values of collaboration and more determined to continue to collaborate with colleagues? This may or may not have been the case.

Table 4: The scheme potentially fosters competition between local providers, putting at risk longstanding partnerships and collaborative ways of working. Absolute Percent male female male female strongly agree 22 29 50% 53% broadly agree 19 16 43% 29% broadly disagree 0 6 0% 11% strongly disagree 0 1 0% 2% don't know 3 3 7% 5% Total 44 55 100% 100%

100% 90% 80%

70% don't know 60% strongly disagree 50% broadly disagree 40% broadly agree 30% strongly agree 20% 10% 0% male female

Graph to table 4

When it came to the issue of motivation, the differences seemed if anything to be counter-intuitive. Women were slightly more likely to consider that pay and conditions were important as motivating factors than men. Again the reasons for this can only be speculative.

116

Table 5: How important to you were reasonable pay and conditions, when you decided to work in/give your time to a Law Centre? Absolute Percent

male female male female very important 11 15 26% 28% fairly important 19 28 44% 52% not very important 12 6 28% 11% not important at all 1 5 2% 9% Total 43 54 100% 100%

100% 90% 80% 70% not important at all 60% not very important 50% fairly important 40% very important 30% 20% 10% 0% male female

The semi-structured interviews did not provide any particular evidence of gender differences though. As previous chapters have illustrated, there were a range of comments on each topic from men and from women. Comments on the value of time spent with clients were very similar, for example, as were comments on the pressures of trying to address even complex issues with a client in no more than 30 minutes. It was a woman who argued that ‘you feel the need to be more business-like (in terms of the time spent with each client) but you can’t do it like that – not when you’re working with the community, not when you are dealing with issues maybe around violence or homelessness or immigration’. But it was also a woman who commented on the importance of ‘an efficiencies approach’ going on to add that 30 minutes should be plenty of time to undertake a professional analysis even when addressing complex problems. And it was a man who quoted a client as saying that ‘you’re not like all the private solicitors I know – you’ve given me space and time and you’ve actually explained what you are going to do’ – explaining how much he valued this feedback.

117 As the rest of this chapter demonstrates, there were plenty of comments that testified to men’s personal commitment and emotional involvement in their work, just as there were plenty of comments to demonstrate such commitments amongst women. Of course this does not in any way prove that gender differences were not at work, simply demonstrating that the research did not identify such patterns. This may perhaps give some clues as to the characteristics of many of the men who were choosing to work or volunteer in Law Centres. But this would be beyond the scope of this particular research. Nor did this research investigate the extent to which Law Centres’ services have been particularly important to women as clients, with correspondingly greater threats for women if the scope of legal aid is further reduced. The likely gender impact of the proposed legislative changes has been central to these debates more widely, but this aspect is also beyond the remit of this particular research.

Comparing and contrasting Law Centres with working in other sectors and types of agency

Meanwhile, as chapter three has suggested, a number of those interviewed, both men and women, picked up on the theme of the particular ethos and values of Law Centres as a motivation for their involvement. For some, there were comparisons to be drawn between working in Law Centres and their previous experiences in other agencies. Several commented on the similarities, describing their work in the Law Centre as building upon previous experiences in related areas of work such as working with refugees, migrant workers and asylum seekers, managing a refuge for those affected by domestic violence or working on homelessness. In addition, the manager of one Law Centre added that she had also managed advice provision in the region and so had relevant background, knowing how important these issues were and how they related to wider issues including equalities issues. The manager of another Law Centre made comparable reference to the relevance of her experience in previous posts, adding that this was the most challenging of a series of challenging posts. There were parallels with the comments of a number of those involved as trustees/ management committee members, several of whom had previous experience as trustees of other public service organisations. In each of these cases the underlying motivations and values echoed the public service values expressed above, emphasising the similarities, despite some differences in context.

For others however, there were sharp contrasts to be drawn with their previous experiences elsewhere, experiences which had drawn them to becoming involved with Law Centres instead. As a lawyer who had previously worked as a clerk in a private firm of solicitors commented ‘it was all about making money’. ‘I came here (to the Law Centre) because I love the work’ he added. ‘When I’ve done a case (successfully) I’ve changed someone’s life’. Having experience of working in Washington D.C. USA (in the seventies) another lawyer explained that in his view ‘if you were a millionaire you got your case done properly, and if you were a ten millionaire your problem was solved by a telephone call to the White House’, ‘so I came back and decided that this wasn’t the career for me’.

118

A young student undertaking a placement with a Law Centre offered a comparable, although more contemporary view. ‘All that we heard at Uni was commercial, commercial, commercial’, she reflected. Since being placed with the Law Centre, she added, her ‘eyes opened.’ She would be taking this wider understanding of ‘what goes on in the real world’ and her wider understanding of the law and how it impacts on people’s lives with her, into her future career. This comment links to the findings on the dynamic ways in which motivations and values can develop over time, as chapter three has already suggested.

Before moving onto this, though, it should be added that dissatisfaction with the private sector was not the only factor, in such choices. A Law Centre worker commented that he had come from advice work in a voluntary sector organisation in the same locality. This was a large organisation which he described as working in ways that he found personally unsympathetic, in terms of his own motivation and values. ‘It was very corporate’ in his view, he explained, contrasting this with the ethos of the Law Centre to which he had moved.

Motivation and values: a two-way process

As chapter three has already suggested too, motivations and values can be strengthened – or indeed undermined by people’s experiences. There were examples of people having become involved in Law Centres by happenstance – applying for a job or a traineeship, or applying to become a volunteer because the opportunity presented itself. Sometimes this opportunity appealed because the person concerned was already sympathetic to the work of Law Centres, as with the trustee/management committee member who became involved as a trades council representative, responding to calls for a volunteer to take this on.

In other cases though, those concerned had very little prior knowledge or understanding of the work of Law Centres. This was the case, for instance, with an administrative worker who had previously worked in the private sector. In this particular case the person in question described herself as having become ‘passionate about the Law Centre now’. She had become more involved as she saw ‘the impact on clients’. ‘Without the Law Centre, clients just wouldn’t have access to justice’. If the Law Centre were to close she concluded, she didn’t know if she could return to working in the private sector – commenting that she ‘wouldn’t have said that before (i.e. before working in the Law Centre)’. There were a number of similar examples.

These included lawyers providing pro bono advice sessions. Many of these came with existing commitments to ‘widening access to justice’ and ‘contributing to the community’. Volunteering was rooted in her values, another long-standing volunteer explained; ‘I’ve always had a social conscience and a belief in justice’. But there were also examples of others who came, initially, with other motivations, largely in some cases, because this was being encouraged by their line managers. As one lawyer explained, voluntary work in Law Centres was seen as being very useful because they provided wide

119 experience, in contrast with the more limited experience available in private firms that might be more reluctant to allow a young lawyer, let alone a trainee, to undertake responsible work for their corporate clients.

A lawyer who had begun to volunteer, early in his career, provided an example of how he, himself, had been encouraged to undertake some voluntary work. This, he suggested, may have been for a variety of reasons, from commitment to corporate responsibility to the promotion of the chambers’ public image, and as what he described as a promotional device for the employers for whom he then worked. Once he had started volunteering however, he came to the view that ‘this was something that fits naturally for me’. It had become ‘very important for me to do the Law Centre work’, which he enjoyed. He had been doing this for a number of years now and planned to continue to do so until he retired. This was basically because ‘it’s a good thing to do. People should help each other’, he explained. This was central to his view of society, based upon people helping each other in mutually supportive ways rather than being simply focused upon profit making.

Pathways through from client to volunteer and from volunteer to paid professional

Whilst the research focussed upon interviewing Law Centre staff and volunteers and other stakeholders, a number of former clients were also interviewed. This was because they had become volunteers and in some cases qualified professionals, as a result of their initial involvement with a Law Centre, a history of progression that emerged from the interview process. As one lawyer explained, for example, she had first come to the Law Centre to seek advice herself, as a law student and single parent with an issue in relation to housing benefit. This was some 12 years ago. She had begun to volunteer for a couple of days a week, whilst completing her degree and then worked at the Law Centre as a locum. She had obtained a training contract (at another Law Centre) and was now employed as a senior solicitor, back in the same office where she had first become involved, some twelve years previously. So the Law Centre had been central to the particular pathway that she had taken into the profession.

Similarly a lawyer in another Law Centre explained that he had been working in manufacturing industry in the 1990s, but had experienced problems with his rent some time around 1995-1996. As a result he went to his local Law Centre for advice and was helped. ‘This was when it (his involvement in Law Centres) started’. He decided upon a career change and by 1997 he was studying law, completing his professional training and qualifying in 2005. He became a volunteer at the local Law Centre, whilst studying law, and subsequently obtained a job there. Apart from a period of training in a city law firm, he had worked in Law Centres ever since.

He described his motivation as ‘wanting to help others’ as he himself had been helped. People in Law Centres were ‘passionate’ (a word that he used several times during the interview) in their commitment. As a client he had found that people in Law Centres ‘listened to me’ and ‘believed in what I’m saying’. This,

120 together with the passion and commitment, was central to the distinctive ethos of Law Centres in his view. As he was to explain in more detail, subsequently, in the interview, this distinctive ethos had been challenged as a result of changes over the past two years, however, leading him to decide to leave, raising issues that are explored in more detail in the following section.

There were also examples of volunteers going on to qualify as lawyers as a result of their experiences. A lawyer in yet another Law Centre explained that he had started his legal career as a volunteer receptionist. This had been almost accidental initially. He hadn’t been thinking of a legal career. But through being involved in the Law Centre his ‘passion grew’. Qualifying as a legal executive encouraged him to go on and try to become a solicitor and through the Law Centre he obtained the opportunity to train. These training opportunities provided pathways into the profession which were valued by those who would have otherwise struggled to qualify, professionally, including a number of Law Centres’ former volunteers as well as a number of their former clients too.

Impacts of the Carter Reforms

So far this chapter has focused upon the more positive aspects of people’s motivations and values. But the research also provided evidence of more negative trends. The survey included an open question about the impact of changes upon respondents’ feelings about working in a Law Centre. There were some positive comments here which were typically focused upon experiences with Law Centres in general, rather than upon the impact of the Carter Reforms per se. ‘I have become more interested and involved as I have learned more about the Law Centre and its work’ commented one, for example. ‘I feel more ‘human’ and would like to give more time to this kind of association’ added another. ‘After seeing the work done at the Law Centre it has focused my interests on what is dealt with. I am now interested in spending a career in this sector’ commented a third.

There were some powerfully negative comments, in response to this survey question, however, including some very sad reflections, as well as some very strong statements of continuing commitment. The more negative comments included the following: ‘I find that the uncertainty and instability of on-going funding and the high demands to meet funders criteria (especially LSC) means that I am now less inclined to continue in a Law Centre’. Another referred to feeling that ‘the role would be “dumbed down”… if I accepted the terms of the ‘Carter Report’ and remained employed I may become cynical and disillusioned with my role’ commented another, going on to add that ‘despite a mortgage and being a sole earner, I remained true to my principles’ (i.e. deciding to resign?) before concluding with some irony that ‘the role was subsequently deemed redundant’ in any case. ‘I have begun to suffer from compassion fatigue’ wrote another. ‘There is an increased level of hopelessness’ added a third.

As well as comments about increasing motivation and engagement, there were some disturbing accounts of de-motivation from the interviews too, including

121 accounts from people who were considering leaving their Law Centre. In some cases, respondents spoke of their extreme reluctance to leave the Law Centre, although some were contemplating this, or had even done so by the time of the interview, explaining that they felt constrained to do this, typically as a result of funding uncertainties, and/or, in some cases, feeling a loss of vision, fearing that Law Centres were drifting away from their original mission in their struggles to meet the requirements of the current funding system. ‘It’s very very hard’, commented a solicitor, ‘I think in terms of (being) an employee it really demotivated me… there is less satisfaction in the work we do, it’s impersonal, it’s rushed… it’s quite monotonous... we had to move away from perhaps more complicated work where we could try and change policy with local authorities’ she added, going on to give an example of preventative work on tenants’ housing issues. ‘You know you want to help people’ she continued, ‘you want to help the community, you are there because you don’t want to make profit like a private firm, you want to make a difference and it seems that the government is trying to squeeze that out of the community’. This particular solicitor was moving on from the Law Centre to work for a different not-for-profit organisation.

The lawyer who had started out as a client of his local Law Centre was amongst those considering his position. He spoke of ‘the joy’ he experienced when ‘you feel you are making an impact’…‘you are genuinely helping people who need help’…‘when you see how you have resolved their problems, made a difference’. Clients had told him how important it was that ‘you listened to me – you believed what I said’. He also appreciated the Law Centre’s ethos including the team working although adding that ‘collective working doesn’t work so well’ in the present context, given the worries about fund raising and other administrative functions. As a result of these pressures he felt that preventative work, public legal education and training were being squeezed out.

He went on to reflect upon the reasons why, as he explained, ‘now I’m considering my position in the law centre’. For example, four hours were allocated per employment case, although the average, in reality was, in his view, closer to eight or ten hours, and some cases took years to complete. So he felt under constant pressure. The situation made him ‘feel so sad’ but ‘you have to face reality’. This wasn’t just about the pay (although the pay was obviously far more attractive in city firms). Lots of staff had left Law Centres already, he suggested. This was about the pressures and the tensions between the need to meet the targets and the need to meet client’s needs. He himself would get to work by 7.30am in the morning, and get home by 7 or 8pm at night. He had often taken work home too (although he subsequently referred to advice and support from colleagues, who had pointed out that this was unsustainable, and that he would be heading for burn out/break down, if he carried on working like that. He needed to maintain some boundaries between work and the rest of his life). ‘We do try to support each other’ he explained, and Law Centre staff was ‘a community’ but this wasn’t enough. Most Law Centres, in his view, were under too much pressure to look at the issues around staff stress. But an overly stressed staff team was less likely to be able to meet community needs – there were direct links here.

122 He went on to talk about the stress involved in having to refuse people, or to give them only one session of advice and refer them on – even if you know that you could help the person in question, more appropriately. Turning people away was ‘very hard’…‘very frustrating’. Some additional help was forthcoming e.g. from solicitors giving pro bono advice, but these volunteers only undertook advice work, they didn’t also take on most of the case work or the wider training and support role that Law Centres could provide.

These accounts of demoralisation as a result of the Carter reforms are, of course, very personal. Deciding to leave a job in a Law Centre represented one end of the spectrum (although there were a number of examples of people who had done or who were in the process of doing precisely that). Another lawyer (who had also been a trainee) made similar comments about the impact of the reforms. ‘I think in terms of (my experiences as) an employee (these changes) really demotivated me’ As a result of the unified contract. ‘rather than providing a personal service and trying to help someone who may be very vulnerable (with) no other access for them to legal services ... instead you are doing a paper exercise, you are not giving a personal service, it's impersonal, it's rush, there is less satisfaction in the work we do’

This lawyer went on to explain that she had decided to leave (and subsequently left) reluctantly, believing that the new LSC contract would involve further pressures. She added that ‘I think what all staff found was that the quality is suffering. We can't spend enough time preparing representation for them, to local authorities, or to court. So the amount of time we are spending with the clients is really limited’. Other staff would leave too, in her opinion. ‘They really believe in the principles of the Law Centre and that's what attracted them. It's just the working environment has changed. We've got a really good team of people. I think you have to be quite selfless perhaps wanting to be working for a Law Centre. You are considering other people, you are not necessarily wanting to work for that flashy law firm… our office is historically in a very deprived area. So it takes a certain kind of person to want to work there in any type of capacity, or be in the management committee. I think you want to do some good and those kind of people are just gonna walk away because they are thinking what's the point?’ She had taken up a post in another not-for-profit agency.

One of the major fears was that the pressures would actually lead to a worse service for clients. Reflecting on the problems of working on what she described as ‘a shoe string’, (having to rely on legal texts handed down from sympathetic colleagues in private firms for instance) one lawyer explained that she sometimes felt as if she was operating on a ‘wing and a prayer’. So far, the quality of service had been maintained, despite this but if this were to change, and if ‘it starts to actually show (e.g. with a claim for negligence) I’ll throw in the towel’. This was a fear, although they were still coping, for the present, in her view.

A lawyer in a different Law Centre was actually contemplating a change of career, if she felt that she couldn’t do what she described as ‘a decent job for my client’. That, she concluded was ‘something I wouldn’t have dreamed of five years ago’. A similar comment was made by another lawyer who had

123 actually decided to move on to another post (in a related field). Having referred to the pressures on the job and the difficulties of meeting client needs, she concluded, that this all ‘took you so far away from what you wanted to do and what people actually need’. ‘So I suppose if you asked five years ago, I couldn’t have seen a time where I was anything else than a Law Centre lawyer or possibly a civil legal aid lawyer doing social justice, but I can’t make it work anymore, so I quit’.

There were some parallels with some of the comments made by trustees/ management committee members. As one long standing member of a management committee reflected, she was unsure of her own future involvement. Although she had maintained her involvement over a number of years (including some periods that had been described as challenging, to say the least) she felt that ‘much more is expected of management committees’. She went on to add that ‘I feel it’s almost semi-professional’, requiring a different skill set, rather than the local knowledge and skills that she had brought as a community activist and trade unionist.

Whilst others were not in the process of even considering leaving, they were reflecting on the future. As a worker with some twenty years experience of advice work reflected ‘you get to the point with it where you say, I could do with a more quiet life. I could do with an easier life without all this every day. (There is pressure to) hit targets from three or four different funders and your future as an organisation is constantly in debate. I think I could do with an easier life’... ‘you get to the point where you are burning out by it’. He did, however, comment elsewhere in the interview that he would like to stay in the advice sector.

‘I love the job’ a lawyer emphasised ‘but I can’t be doing with this (insecurity) all the time’ but he didn’t want to leave either, re-affirming his emotional attachment to the job. He was only too aware of the pressures though, as exemplified by sickness rates amongst staff. Although he didn’t usually remember his dreams, he added, he was now dreaming about cases all the time. Despite this, he nevertheless concluded that working in the Law Centre was ‘the best decision I’ve ever made’. This issue of staff sickness as a response to stress was a recurring theme in a number of Law Centres, further exacerbating stress for those left trying to cope with the workload, , as a lawyer in another Law Centre explained. As he added, one of the lawyers who was then off sick, had been too emotionally attached to the needs of clients for her own good. She had achieved what he described as ‘amazing results’ but ‘at huge personal cost to herself’.

At the other end of the spectrum from those who had left, there were those who were absolutely committed to staying at whatever the personal cost, either financially or emotionally. Despite the pressure, one lawyer explained that she coped because ‘you just pop on a few more hours’ adding that ‘I don’t mind doing that’. ‘Everyone feels the same’. These could be described as ‘labours of love’, unpaid work for the love of it. ‘I’ve always been passionate about my work’. This was, in her view, in contrast with those in large organisations where ‘come 5 o’clock they’re out the door’ whether or not a particular piece of work needed to be completed. In the Law Centre, on the

124 other hand, ‘it’s very nice to be around people with the same passion for work, the same passion for people’. One of her colleagues (interviewed separately) made similar comments, adding that if funding were to be lost in future, she would ‘do something else for an income’ and then continue to ‘run an advice session anyway... I’ll do that ‘on a voluntary basis’ as a ‘labour of love’, she explained. A lawyer with many years experience in another Law Centre similarly commented that with a family and a mortgage, he would need to find paid employment if the Law Centre were to run out of funding, but he would be personally committed to continuing to provide advice on a pro bono basis.

The public service ethos was clearly alive here then, although at considerable costs to the individuals concerned. The job was demanding enough in any case. As one young volunteer commented, this was not just about spending time with clients but also about ‘lots of blood, sweat and tears’. There was evidence of burn out, together with evidence of levels of stress that could well lead to burn out. And there were also some very practical reflections on the limits of what could be achieved by voluntary efforts alone. Although one particular Law Centre had continued to operate for a period, on a voluntary basis, until funding had been restored, this would be unsustainable in the current context, it was pointed out. Apart from any other factors, workers would be unlikely to be able to live on benefits, whilst providing the service on a voluntary basis, as they had managed to do, in the past. People had expressed the willingness to make considerable sacrifices in order to keep the service going in the past. But at the end of the day, he concluded, rents and mortgages did still need to be paid.

Coping with tensions and stress

As earlier chapters and the previous section have suggested, both staff and management committee members provided illustrations of how stressful these changes actually were, in their experiences. Amongst the sharper examples, there was the case of a Law Centre where staff had collectively decided to take a pay cut (despite being aware of the problems this might cause for some staff, particularly those with family commitments). Making staff redundant had clearly been stressful for management committees as well as for the staff involved, as were decisions about changing staff conditions of service such as maternity leave, in order to make savings. Being in what felt like a ‘state of crisis’ was stressful in any event. People spoke of feeling trapped in the challenges of survival from day to day, without the time to focus upon longer term solutions. A number pointed to what they identified as ‘worrying levels of stress’ as a result of these insecurities.

A number of those interviewed referred to finding ways of managing their time more effectively, however. There were also references to the need to learn from time management practices in the private sector. As a lawyer reflected, ‘you’ve got to have targets.. and a private mentality’ in order to survive. He himself had worked in the private sector for a period, precisely in order to acquire these skills which he had then brought to the Law Centre, when a job had come up there.

125 Whilst so many of the stresses that loomed large in respondents’ minds related to the current funding context, it should be recognised that these were not the only sources of tension. As it has already been suggested, there were several examples of stresses that related to staffing issues, including issues within collectives (if collectives found it difficult to address performance issues, for example). And there were examples of challenges relating to conflicts of interest within and between communities as well as between staff, including issues where allegations of racism were involved. As in other studies (Hoggett et al,2009), these have been some of the most painful issues to be addressed. Others referred to the reality that Law Centre clients could also be challenging, ‘exasperating at times’. Ways of coping included the use of humour - sharing such experiences with colleagues afterwards - figured amongst ways of managing such situations without impacting on the service to clients. ‘We just laugh it off’ when discussing it with colleagues afterwards, one manager explained.

So people were adopting a range of strategies in response. Good team work was frequently cited as a source of support. ‘We do try to support each other’, an administrative worker explained, adding that if someone was really under pressure ‘then everyone rallies round and gives them the space they need’. ‘A fantastic support network amongst staff’ commented someone from another Law Centre. ‘It’s stressful but this is a nice environment’ commented a lawyer in another Law Centre, ‘sharing ideas, getting suggestions’ with good levels of support between colleagues’ from other agencies as well as from the Law Centre itself. There were references to regional groups of colleagues from other Law Centres and from the LCF, for instance.

Some also spoke more personally about their strategies for coping with stress. For example, a management committee member/trustee provided an explanation of how she set out to identify the issues where it was possible to make some impact from those where this was not feasible, and then how ‘to stop anguishing about the latter’ – easier said that done, in practice, it was agreed. Another respondent explained that he did ‘a lot of running’ to relieve the stress, adding that he still felt depressed sometimes – and angry too in the face of ‘commissioners who don’t really understand the impact of what they are doing’ whereas basically ‘all we want to do is to advise people’.

Alienation and demoralisation and/ or the social reproduction of continuing ‘labours of love’?

So was there evidence that the public service ethos was being undermined? In summary, as the previous section has demonstrated, there was clearly evidence of demoralisation and stress, leading some of those interviewed to decide to leave their jobs or to stop serving on management committees. Those who were taking such decisions seemed to be doing so with considerable reluctance though. Demoralisation seemed to be generally linked to frustration at the difficulties in providing clients and communities with the types of services that they needed, rather than any rejection of the ethos and values of Law Centres per se. Realistically, funding insecurities were a factor in such decisions, as some of those who have been quoted above had pointed

126 out. And voluntary efforts were not going to be able to fill the gaps, if funding were to be withdrawn. But none of this suggests any wholesale retreat from public sector values more generally.

On the contrary, in fact, there was plenty of evidence to suggest that individuals and groups were providing unpaid labour, often to a considerable degree, in order to keep services going in challenging times. For some this was exacting its toll, in terms of personal stress, with evidence of stress-related sickness and some evidence of potential burn-out. Much of the work was inherently stressful in any case, and there were other causes of stress to be considered too. But public service modernisation, as introduced with the Carter Reforms, was adding new levels of stress, levels that were being compounded because of the emotional commitments and values of so many Law Centre workers and volunteers.

Previous research (Burdett, 2004) had suggested that the motivations, values and commitment that long established Law Centre workers demonstrated were likely to prove to be passing phenomena. Burdett raised concerns as to whether the next generation of ‘Thatcher’s children’ 11 could be expected to be motivated in very different, more instrumental and far more individualistic ways. This was certainly the view that was expressed by a number of long- established public service professionals in other client interacting positions (Hoggett et al, 2009). The research similarly provided some evidence that long-established professionals harboured such fears for the future of the public service ethos. The next generation was ‘very different’ in the view of one of those interviewed, for this research, for instance. They were ‘not as political, not as idealistic’ and a ‘whole lot more sensible’ (in terms of their future careers and their pensions).

A young lawyer in the same Law Centre echoed this final point insofar as she recognised a generational difference when it came to attitudes to funding and job security. She explained that younger people like herself tended to be more used to the fact that jobs were so often short term – precarious employment was the norm. (She was on short term funding herself). This didn’t mean that younger people were less committed than people who had joined Law Centres in the past though, in her view. Older people typically did have very strong principles. Their experiences were different from the experiences of younger people. But younger people did also develop commitment, too. She herself appreciated the ethos and values of the Law Centre which she described in summary, as being ‘very principled here’. There was ‘a real belief in some of the old fashioned principles … about access to advice... quality of the advice’ for all, regardless of ability to pay.

Summarising generational differences a manager from another Law Centre described some of their young legal volunteers as ‘really brilliant’. There were some differences between those who came to work in Law Centres in the early days, the 1970s and 1980s, many of whom had been more politicised perhaps.

11 The term ‘Thatcher’s Children’ has been used to imply that young people who were brought up in and just after the years when Margaret Thatcher was prime minister were socialised into a relatively individualistic, competitive and private-market orientated cultural climate.

127 The younger staff and volunteers tended to come with what she described as a ‘human rights’ perspective, rather than a ‘political perspective’ but this didn’t mean that they were only interested in casework, in her view. On the contrary, in fact, they were also interested in campaigning on justice issues. Their experiences of working in the Law Centre also broadened their appreciation of some of the problems that people actually faced; ‘“Now I get it” they’d say’ she added. One of the researchers quite incidentally overheard a young volunteer making precisely such a comment, as he explained how and why he was involved in publicity activities around the ‘Justice for All’ campaign (as well as having been involved in casework at the Law Centre in question).

Nor did there seem to be a problem, in terms of young people’s interests in pursuing legal careers with an emphasis upon access to justice. One of the universities that specialised in providing opportunities for learning through hands-on experience illustrated this with reference to the competition for places. They were vastly over-subscribed. This didn’t seem to indicate that the next generation was uninterested or unmotivated at all.

In summary then, some forms of the public service ethos seemed to be surviving, and are being transmitted to the next generation. But there was also evidence that this was being achieved at considerable costs, in terms of stress and potential burn-out, labours of love, with blood, sweat and tears.

128 Chapter Nine: Access to justice for disadvantaged communities: issues of value and values

This research set out to explore the impact of public service modernisation agendas as these were being experienced by public service professionals and volunteers engaged in Law Centres. Access to justice was central to the principles upon which the post war Welfare State was established, as chapter one explained, demonstrating the importance of Law Centres’ contributions to the provision of access to justice for all, regardless of the ability to pay. How then were public service modernisation agendas being experienced in this vitally important but relatively under-researched field? As the Introduction explained, Law Centres were selected for study for a number of reasons, including the fact that they were offering precisely the access to information about rights and responsibilities that have been identified as centrally important to the public service modernisation agendas, agendas through which governments have been aiming to shift the balance of power and accountability from public service providers towards more active and informed citizens and service users. Were these policy agendas facilitating the development of new forms of professionalism? Or conversely were they being experienced as promoting new forms of de-professionalisation (Banks, 2004) demotivating, demoralising and potentially undermining the occupational values and identities of those involved in Law Centres’ work, values that reflected the best of the public service ethos more generally.

More specifically too the research also aimed to identify the ways in which these changes were being managed, what strategies were being adopted to manage competing pressures and demands whilst maintaining professional ethical standards, how these responses might vary in differing settings and what might be the implications for professional education and continuing professional development? There were issues here with potential relevance for debates on the future of the public service ethos and the Welfare State’s future, more generally.

Previous chapters have examined the evidence from the research, illustrating the dilemmas and tensions that have been identified. In addition, the research has illustrated some of the strategies that have been adopted, as Law Centre staff and volunteers have been attempting to address the challenges of public service modernisation agendas whilst maintaining Law Centres’ ethos and their own professional values. As chapter three explained more specifically too, Law Centres’ ethos and values have been closely linked with the motivations and values of those who have been involved with them, whether as paid staff or as volunteers. This helps to explain why current dilemmas were being experienced as being so painful, in so many cases, as chapter eight explored. Before summarising these findings, and their possible implications for debates about the public service ethos and values more generally, though, this chapter reflects on the research findings about the value of Law Centres themselves. What claims were they making themselves and how far were these claims being corroborated by other stakeholders.

129 The Value of Law Centres

‘Law Centres are embedded in their communities and answer to committees of local people. They assist vulnerable people when they suffer injustice, educate people about their rights and tackle local problems’ (Law Centres Federation website (accessed 27 th December 2011).

Law Centres themselves make a powerful case for their importance in terms of providing access to justice. This assertion is corroborated by what other stakeholders have to say about them, never more so than in terms of providing access to justice. One volunteer whose law firm encouraged its employees to undertake a range of pro bono work explained it this way:

‘I think there are certain things that society thinks people are entitled to: shelter, food are the obvious ones but at some point the right to be treated fairly comes along and the only way you can enforce that is through the law. You get some people who have been treated terribly and that is only prevented if people have recourse to the law. This is the system that ensures fairness, or what passes for fairness. I think if you can pay for the services you should but I guess it is often the people who can’t pay who really need the law for fairness. I guess a society without legal representatives is a society without the law because the rules just mean nothing don’t they. If you don’t know what you are entitled to and you don’t follow the paths to get what you are entitled to then it is as if the law did not exist’.

The law firm volunteer’s point was that without Law Centres, democratic rights exist only on paper, rather than being genuinely available. This links back to the discussion of the central importance of access to justice, as a defining characteristic of the post war Welfare State, in chapter one. One of the defining characteristics of Law Centres was the virtually universal appreciation for the work they did in providing access to justice. As a former client of a Law Centre testified:

‘Finding the Law Centre was like winning the Lottery. After going round in circles like for weeks. For me I think they’re the people’s lawyer, the poor people’s lawyer. They represent the people who cannot afford it and they fight for these people. Because in their view we’ve got rights just like the people who’ve got the money and we’re entitled to the same thing as the people that have got the money’.

Appreciation of Law Centres by other advice agencies across the statutory and voluntary sector was also strongly evidenced from the stakeholder interviews. These agencies saw the Law Centres’ sine qua non as being ‘accessible to all’. As an advice worker, whose agency collaborated closely with their local Law Centre reflected ‘The uniqueness of the Law Centre is that it is actually accessible to all. You can be anyone, which is really good. If you haven’t got any money you can access the Law Centre and because it is a community based organisation you see all sorts of people there’.

130 This was central to Law Centres’ ethos. The same worker explained that

‘People can be intimidated by independent solicitors because they dress, they have a certain attire that they have all the time, whereas the Law Centres are a lot more relaxed and so you feel you can relax and express yourself a little bit more, being in that environment it does make a difference’.

‘If there isn’t an organisation like the Law Centre available to people then where do people go? What do people do then? Is that not a form of concern for the government; that there are people who are abandoned and unsupported? Quite often people will just stay in their circumstances which isn’t good because they are not getting the legal support, which is not ethical, it is not right, because of your situation, because you can’t access a service. It brings in a hierarchy thing, with society, how all those who can actually afford it, their needs will be met, but those who can’t... their needs will not be met and it leaves a hole’.

The ‘form of concern’ may assume normative ethical and socio-democratic proportions but a council manager was also quick to emphasis the improved managerial outcomes:

‘With homelessness, when it comes to challenging the outcome of our decision, we can’t do that. Advice will have to be given by an independent person or group who would look at issues and satisfy themselves as to the necessity for such a challenge. Overall the Law Centre will stand guard on behalf of the individual and say, ‘you know what, this is not compliant with the necessary requirements of the law, you have fallen short of what you set out to deliver, you need to rectify this, otherwise you face a challenge in court’. And for the most part the local authority (will) turn around and review their decision and see whether they were right. But usually at that point, justice is seen to be done because they reconsider more carefully’.

The dual outcome of improved access to services and justice is thus achieved. However what stood out for a young volunteer, who was seeking work experience at a local Law Centre after graduating from college, was the humanity and commitment:

‘You’re likely to be helped here. You will be helped to the best of their ability and people will do the best they can and considering the budget and the pressures that they have to go by, they do a lot for the people that come in. They’re very understanding, and the language barrier sometimes, the effort that is put in to find an interpreter, little things like that. It’s all that extra effort that you won’t get anywhere else, that easily. Especially considering that some of the people here are not being paid and there are a lot of volunteers. To put that effort in knowing that you’re not actually getting any money from it, that’s a rare thing. You just feel like you’re being cared for, you do. You feel like you’re getting the help you need, because to go somewhere else, you’re not going to get it and you’re just going to be struggling. They are actually here for the community. That’s what they’re supposed to do and they do what they’re meant to do’.

131 Law Centres’ holistic approach was also particularly valued. For example, a council manager spoke of the precise nature of the added value engendered by the local Law Centre.

‘So usually the Law Centre would look at the whole issues concerning the person’s circumstances and examine all of the parameters set down and satisfy themselves (as to whether) the local authority (has) done all they are required to do by law? Is there any more information from the individual that they have not bothered to interrogate or even ask the individual to provide? It is essential to continue to make reasonable inquiries, not just slap dash inquiries’.

Without this independent oversight and intervention the council manager feared the process often became cursory and inattentive. Rather than interpreting the challenging questions asked of his department defensively he argued such inquires were ‘essential’. By looking at the ‘whole issues’ and asking the questions the local authority has not ‘bothered to... ask’, the Law Centre broadened the reach of the law, the efficacy of the service and enhanced access to justice. From the client’s point of view it was the way they were dealt with that made all the difference, holistically as well as with warmth.

‘It’s a combination of what they’ve set out to do and how they set out to do it and they embrace it and that’s where all the warmth is coming from. That’s how I feel. I think even with the first appointment you have with them what I experienced from the first interview was a sense of not being alone anymore and I think that made the difference for me’.

In addition to providing access to justice for individuals and communities that would otherwise have no recourse to the law, Law Centres were also valued for providing a wide range of specialist knowledge and skills. Chapter six has demonstrated the potential value of partnership working, when Law Centres were working collaboratively with other agencies. These benefits were identified by stakeholders who in the course of interviews spoke of the multiple benefits accrued from collaboration, notably in the provision of seamless services and capacity building across a local area.

The Law Centres that were researched in the second phase were valued for their contributions in a number of these ways including leading on joint working initiatives, servicing interagency forums and providing bespoke training for advice workers. The synergies that arose from networking across organisational boundaries were highly prized by both statutory and voluntary sector colleagues. As one advice worker explained

‘Organisations like (ours) are reliant on Law Centres to inform us about consultations which are out. It may even be preparing a template for a consultation response, so that the responses go in. The voluntary sector does not have time to do this because they are busy providing frontline services. It is important for the sector to be mobilised, represent our communities and have a voice’.

132 The worker went on to cite both the importance of their local Law Centre’s value base and proven leadership:

‘They come from a very anti-racist, anti-sexist perspective. They have that ethos embedded in them in terms of what they do on a day to day basis. It’s not an afterthought; it’s not something that we could say they’re not going to be looking at that point. They’ve got that political awareness. They understand the whole political context of why they were here in the first place and what they need to be doing. And they’ve held onto that and I suppose that’s one of the reasons they’re finding it difficult to hold on, like everybody else really. I always remember going to a Voluntary Sector Forum meeting and everyone’s very formal and the (Law Centre) worker would speak up and challenge. They had the confidence to do that. For another organisation this may be difficult. The worker put their head above the parapet put it that way in order to make their point and we have a lot of admiration and a lot of respect for that’.

The implementation of the Carter Reforms had been associated with significant reductions in the time spent on anything other than case work. But there was also some evidence that Law Centres were continuing to find ways of contributing to wider policy and preventative work. Where this was still taking place there was also evidence that it was being valued by other stakeholders. One council procurement officer illustrated this point, giving an example of the dilemmas involved in making a review of funding:

‘If we were to cut some of the services that our third sector (agencies such as the Law Centre) delivers we potentially will see an increase of people coming to see us for advice. That’s one side, and without the prevention early on, for example on homelessness, we would be having to potentially pick those clients up and put them into some form of temporary accommodation. That has an impact on our stats and our ability to deliver and increases our costs. So you take from one end and you’re actually increasing at the other end and there’s a tight rope there in terms of balancing prevention with statutory functions. That all needs to be taken account of as part of the review’.

The preventative work of Law Centres has had both social and economic value, as chapter seven argued in more detail. By feeding back intelligence into legal and partnership frameworks, for example, systems and performance measures can be improved, including avoiding unnecessary litigation.

Whilst these contributions were valued by stakeholders, there was also widespread recognition that these benefits may no longer be available in future, however. As a council manager recalled:

‘Over the years I’ve noticed that the Law Centres have blossomed into a group of community centres whereby legal advice can be obtained, social policy issues can sometimes be championed. But the near disappearance of legal aid to them has shackled their activities completely – it is almost killing off the services they provide in the various community groups. Some of them are shutting down and most people are threatened with their closures. So in an absence of adequate funding either through private individual contribution, or charitable groups, then Law Centres are set to disappear. It would be a sad

133 case if that happens in this country because we have this tradition of very good Law Centres and some have been here for “hundreds of years”. It would be really sad if they all disappeared because of lack of funding or changing government policy or local authority funding’.

A funder added that times of austerity made Law Centres especially vulnerable to closure:

‘In the past (Law Centres) have not been popular... with some local authorities. Sometimes the officers are enlightened and see the opportunity to learn from feedback. It is often perhaps about convincing councillors who are going to have somebody knocking on the door saying ‘don’t close my library’. I often think that sometimes, if you are faced with cuts, like the authorities are now, the challenging situation may not be as welcomed; less staff, less time, less money... I think that there is a fear from the Law Centres that that could be more of an issue in the future and when they do challenge they are not popular and when they do they’ll become even less popular. There is a view, I don’t know how true it is, that the Citizens Advice Bureaus (CABs) get more funding than Law Centres because Law Centres are more challenging towards the local authority. It is more in terms of professional legal advice, which CABs also do but sometimes it is more generalist’.

But Law Centres were lynchpins of strategic approaches to advice service provision. As a local authority officer in one city explained: ‘They fit into the network and they are a city wide service, although they do work sometimes with particular groups. The service is complementary, a specialist service that isn’t met elsewhere. The other advice services give advice, the Law Centre gives specialist legal advice that isn’t available elsewhere.’

‘I really don’t know what we’ll do if they (the Law Centre) don’t survive the next round of cuts’ reflected an advice worker from a neighbouring agency in similar vein.

‘Save our Law Centres, they are crucial’ as another stakeholder concluded.

Ways forward?

Although the research provided evidence of considerable demoralisation amongst Law Centre staff and volunteers, there was also powerful evidence of continuing commitment. Despite their negative experiences, those who were most critical of public service modernisation agendas were amongst those who were also most determined to find ways forward, being more ‘business-like’ without losing sight of Law Centres’ ethos and without compromising their own professional values. But there were stressful dilemmas to be faced, it emerged, and painful choices to be made in the context of more recent proposals to restrict the provision of legal aid still further. Considerable emotional labour was being expended as a result, as the previous chapter demonstrated.

134 Previous research had suggested that earlier generations of Law Centre staff and volunteers had been characterised by stronger commitments to Law Centres and to public service values overall. In contrast, younger generations were becoming more instrumental in their outlook, it had been suggested, and less troubled by the dilemmas of public service modernisation and marketisation agendas more generally (Burdett, 2004). These trends were not identified by this research, however. There were indeed some generational differences, as earlier chapters have demonstrated. But younger staff and volunteers also demonstrated strong commitments, commitments that were typically strengthened further as a result of their experiences in Law Centres. As chapter eight also illustrated, there were examples of students applying for law courses on the basis of their specific commitments to developing knowledge and skills in the field of legal aid work, commitments that could be taken forward, whether as Law Centre staff or as volunteers providing pro bono sessions in the future. Law Centres had potentially important contributions to make to legal education and training for the future, providing opportunities for widening knowledge and skills as well as making students aware of professional issues and ethical dilemmas that might otherwise have passed them by, virtually unnoticed, if their training had been confined to experiences in more commercial aspects of the law. In summary then, there were grounds for some optimism, in terms of the reproduction of value commitments amongst the next generation.

There were, in addition, some grounds for optimism in terms of the development of survival strategies. The case studies provide illustrations of such strategies in practice, demonstrating ways of using resources more cost effectively whilst continuing to provide services holistically. There were examples of Law Centres continuing to meet individuals’ needs for information and advice, whilst continuing to promote preventative approaches, for instance. And there were examples of Law Centres working collaboratively with other agencies rather than competing with them, in order to provide more comprehensive services to clients across localities. In Avon and Bristol, for example, the Advice Network co-ordinated services across the city and neighbouring counties, with the Law Centre providing specialist legal services. The aim has been for agencies to provide a cohesive map of information, advice and advocacy, based upon collaboration with local authorities and with each other instead of being rooted in competition for scarce resources.

Similarly in Coventry Advice Services Coventry had developed a joint strategy to meet clients’ and communities’ needs holistically – as well as cost effectively. Two way referral relationships were developed, between generalist and specialist agencies and vice versa, with what was described as a very successful electronic referral system, developed with Big Lottery funding. This illustrated the potential scope for agencies to secure additional funding, on the basis of such a partnership approach.

There had been comparable developments in Nottingham where a group of not-for-profit advice agencies had come together to form Advice Nottingham. Here too this had improved the coverage of services as well as providing mutual support and enhanced opportunities for responding proactively in the

135 context of funding pressures (‘getting ahead of the game’ as one interviewee explained this’). And here too, the Law Centre had been central to these developments. The outcome had been a joined up structure, effectively linking generalist and specialist provision, operating in more cost-effective ways without losing sight of the interests of clients and communities.

Wider implications?

The research demonstrated the value placed on Law Centres, just as the interviews demonstrated the importance of the ethos and values that were underpinning them. The challenges and dilemmas that public service modernisation has been posing have been emerging powerfully. But so has the determination of those engaged in developing alternative responses, re- examining ways of providing services most effectively whilst holding onto the Law Centres’ underlying ethos, developing more efficient ways of managing their operations without losing their commitment to team work, increasing the use of voluntary effort without exploiting unpaid labour, using new technologies without undermining the importance of personal face-to-face support for clients, working collaboratively in partnership with other organisations and agencies rather than increasing competition.

Previous chapters have also demonstrated the human costs, including the emotional labour as well as the unpaid overtime and the voluntary effort that all this has been requiring. Even so, it would seem unlikely that Law Centres could survive for long, without continuing public support. Despite the efforts to hone business skills, develop new forms of income generation and attract private funding and volunteers, the future sustainability of Law Centres would seem primarily to depend upon being underpinned by a firm foundation of public resources.

Short-term savings might be achieved, by removing areas of law from the scope of legal aid, for example, and so potentially jeopardising the future of Law Centres. But, as many respondents observed, this would entail longer term financial as well as social and human costs. In research published in November 2011, the Legal Action Group (Legal Action Group, 2011) reviewed the effects of cuts in social welfare law. Of a total of £280m cuts in funding from civil legal aid, the government estimate 12 that around 600,000 people will lose out on help with everyday civil legal problems. In making the case for investment rather than cuts, the LAG highlighted the short-sightedness of such cuts in preventative and economic terms. Their research makes the case that ‘£60m in expenditure on legal aid advice saves the state £338.65m in expenditure on other services’. The report goes on to spell out the dramatic leverage: ‘Put another way, one pound expenditure on legal aid saves the state around six pounds in other spending’ (Ibid).

12 Figures from Proposals for the Reform of Legal Aid in England and Wales - Consultation response , Impact assessment Annex A: Scope Ministry of Justice June 2011.

136 There are alternatives however. In Scotland, for example, whilst recognising the need to make savings, the Scottish Government has taken a different approach from that currently being proposed by the Coalition Government, being of the view that ‘wholesale reductions to scope can have a damaging impact on access to justice and can have adverse consequences for other parts of the justice system as well as wider society’. 13

Access to justice has been the hallmark of the Welfare State, and indeed, of democratic societies more generally. As a lawyer who had been providing pro bono advice in a Law Centre reflected, without Law Centres people in the communities that they currently served would struggle to access justice. ‘What is justice’ she concluded, ‘if people don’t understand it and can’t access it’?

As another solicitor in private practice commented in similar vein, when the issue of threats to Law Centres’ futures emerged in the discussion, ‘the volume of unmet need would expand’. Law Centres enable people who would otherwise be unable to do so ‘to have access to justice and recourse to remedies’. This is what lawyers provide to citizens, and what should be available to citizens in democratic societies under the rule of law’.

13 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/ 2011/10/04161029

137 References

Abel-Smith, B. and Titmuss, K. eds. (1974) Social policy , London: Allen and Unwin Abel-Smith, B., Zander, M. and Brooke, R. (1973) Legal problems and the citizen , London: Heinemann Advice Services Alliance (2005) Making legal rights a reality : the Advice Services Alliance’s response to the Legal Services Commission’s consultation paper , London: Advice Services Alliance Advice Services Alliance (2007) Fixed fees, equality and diversity , London: Advice Services Alliance Advice Services Alliance (2008) Measuring the outcomes of housing advice: findings from the Southwark Law Centre pilot . London: Advice Services Alliance Advice UK (2008) It’s the system, stupid! Radically rethinking advice , London: Advice UK Advice UK (2008) Winning the arguments against CLACs and CLANs , London: Advice UK Barnes, M. and Prior, D. (2009) Subversive citizens , Bristol: Policy Press Banks, S. (2004) Ethics, accountability and the social professions, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan Banks, S. and Gallagher, A. (2009) Ethics in professional life , Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan Bell, K. and Smerdon, M. (2011): Deep value: a literature review of the role of effective relationships in public services , London: Community Links Benington, J. and Moore, M. eds. (2010) Public value: theory and practice , Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan Bindman, G. (2002) ‘What made me a legal aid lawyer?’, Journal of Law and Society , Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 510-520 Burdett, J. (2004) Professional accountability and community control: The governance of community Law Centres in England , Unpublished PhD thesis, London: London School of Economics Clarke, J., Gewirtz S. and McLaughlin, E., (2000) ‘Reinventing the welfare state’ in Clarke, J., Gewirtz S. and McLaughlin, E., (eds.) New Managerialism, New Welfare? London: Sage, pp. 1-26 Clarke, J., Smith, N. and Vidler, E. (2006) ‘The indeterminacy of choice: political and organisational implications’ Social Policy and Society , Vol. 5, No. 3, 327- 336 Cohn, E.J. (1943) ‘Legal aid for the poor: A study in comparative law and legal reform’, Law Quarterly Review , Vol . 59, pp. 250ff Cookson, G., (2011) Unintended consequences: the cost of the Government’s legal aid reforms: a report for the Law Society of England & Wales , London: King’s College Collins, R. (1990) ‘Market closure and the conflict theory of the professions’ in Burrage, M. and Torstenndahl, R. (eds.) Professions in theory and history: rethinking the study of the professions , London: Sage, pp. 24-44 Collins, S., (2008) Making CLACs work for you: experiences from Derby , London: Advice UK

138 Crouch, C. (2011) ‘Privates, publics and values’ in Benington, J. and Moore, M. (eds.) Public value: theory and practice , Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 52-73 Drakeford, M. (2008) ‘Going private?’ in M. Powell (ed.) Modernising the welfare state: the Blair legacy , Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 161-178 East Midlands Improvement and Efficiency Partnership (2010) Positive change: A‘systems thinking’ approach to customer-focused improvements , Good practice case study, Nottingham: East Midlands Councils Esping Andersen, G. (1990) Three worlds of welfare capitalism , Princeton New Jersey, USA: Princeton University Press Esping Andersen, G. (1999) Social foundations of postindustrial economies , Oxford: Oxford University Press Esping Andersen, G. with Gallie, D., Hemerijck, A. and Myles, J. (2002) Why we need a new welfare state , Oxford: Oxford University Press Finch, J. and Groves, D. eds. (1983) A labour of love: women, work and caring , London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Fox, C., Moorhead, R., Sefton, M., Wong, K., (2010), Community Legal Advice Centres and Networks: a process evaluation , London: Legal Services Commission Hale, B. (2011) Equal access to justice in the Big Society , Sir Henry Hodge Memorial Lecture on 27 June 2011, London: The Law Society Hanson, O. (2006) CLACs and CLANs: a new reality ? Legal Action feature, London: Legal Action Group Hoggett, P, Mayo, M. and Miller, C. (2009) The dilemmas of development work , Bristol: Policy Press Hochshild, A. (1983) The managed heart: the commercialisation of human feeling , Berkeley: University of California Press Hugman, R. (2005) New approaches in ethics for the caring professions, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan Hynes, S. and Robins, J. (2009) The justice gap: whatever happened to legal aid? London: Legal Action Group Kennedy, H. (2009) ‘Preface’ in Hynes, S., and Robson, J., (2009) The justice gap , London: Legal Action Group Law Society (2006) What price justice ? London: Law Society Le Grand, J. (2003) Motivation, agency and public policy , Oxford: Oxford University Press Le Grand, J. and Bartlett, W. (1993) ‘Introduction’ and ‘The theory of quasi- markets’ in Le Grand, J. and Bartlett, W. (eds.) Quasi-markets and social policy , Basingstoke: Macmillan, pp. 1-12 and 13-34 Le Grand, J. (2003) Motivation, agency and social policy , Oxford: Oxford University Press Legal Action Group (2012) Social welfare law: what the public wants from civil legal aid , London: Legal Action Group Legal Services Commission (2005) Making legal rights a reality: the Legal Services Commission’s strategy for the Community Legal Service . Volume One: A consultation paper, London: Legal Services Commission Legal Services Commission (2011) Legal Services Commission response to Cabinet Office’s Green Paper on ‘Modernising Commissioning’ , London: Legal Services Commission

139 Lord Carter of Coles (2006) Lord Carter’s review of legal aid procurement - legal aid: a market-based approach to reform (2006), London: House of Lords Makepeace, A. (2009) ‘Size matters when you take on civil legal aid work, if you want to make a profit’, Law Society Gazette , 10 December 2009 Marris, P. and Rein, M. (1967) Dilemmas of social reform , New York: Atherton Press Marshall, T. H. (1950) Citizenship and social class , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Ministry of Justice (2010) Proposals for the reform of legal aid in England and Wales , Consultation paper, London: Ministry of Justice Ministry of Justice (2011a) Legal aid reform in England and Wales: the Government response, London: Ministry of Justice Ministry of Justice (2011b): Legal aid reform in England and Wales: cumulative legal aid reform proposals, Impact assessment, London: Ministry of Justice Ministry of Justice (2011c): Government response to Justice Committee’s third report of session 2010/2011: the Government’s proposed reform of legal aid , London: Ministry of Justice NEF Consulting (2008) The socio-economic value of law centres, London: New Economics Foundation NEF Consulting (2009) Review of the impact of the Unified Contract on Law Centres , London: New Economics Foundation NEF Consulting (2010a) Law Centres Federation: what is real value? London: New Economics Foundation NEF Consulting (2010b) Outcomes in advice , London: New Economics Foundation Newman, J. (2000) ‘Beyond the New Public Management? Modernizing public services’ in Clarke, J., Gewirtz S. and McLaughlin, E., (eds.) New Managerialism, New Welfare? London: Sage, pp. 45- 61 Newman, J. and Clarke, J. (2009) Publics, politics and power , London: Sage Page, R. (2007) Revisiting the welfare state, Maidenhead: Open University Press Rayner, J. and Baksi, C. (2011) ‘One in three law centres set to shut down’, Law Society Gazette , 04 August 2011 Sanderson, P. and Sommerlad, H. (2011) ‘Colonising law for the poor: access to justice in the new regulatory state’ in Bryson, V. and Fisher, P. (eds.) Redefining social justice: New Labour rhetoric and reality , Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp. 178-200 Sen, A. (1993) ‘Capability and well-being’ in Nussbaum, M. and Sen, A. (eds.) The quality of life , Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 30-53 Scott-Moncrieff, L. (2010) ‘Virtual against traditional: contrasting legal aid business models’, Law Society Gazette , 11 March 2010 Smith, P. (1999) ‘Logging emotions: a logbook of personal reflections’, Soundings , Vol. 11, pp. 128-137 Smith, R. (1997) ‘Clinics in a cold climate: Community law centres in England and Wales’, Osgoode Hall Law Journal , Vol. 35, pp. 895-924 Titmuss, R. (1960) The irresponsible society , London: Fabian Society Titmuss, R. (1968) Commitment to welfare , London: Allen and Unwin Tribal Group (2010) Early lessons from changes to legal advice provision and funding: the local authority experience , London: Tribal Group Ungerson, C., ed. (1990) Gender and caring, London: Havester Wheatsheaf

140 Whitfield, D. (2006) New Labour’s attack on public services , Nottingham: Spokesman Wilding, P. (1982) Professional power and social welfare , London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Williams, F. (1989) Social policy , Cambridge: Polity Press

Web references

Advice UK, CLACs and CLANs : [http://www.adviceuk.org.uk/news-and- campaigns/consultations/clac] Cabinet Office (1999) Responsive public services [http://www.archive.official- documents.co.uk/document/cm43/4310/4310-03.htm] The Scottish Government (2011) A sustainable future for legal aid , Edinburgh: The Scottish Government [http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/10/04161029]

141 Appendix 1

The impact of changes in legal aid for Law Centre staff, volunteers and management committee members: researching the challenges for Law Centres’ values and ethos

The findings will be fed back and should be useful to Law Centres and the Law Centre Federation. The study is being carried out by researchers at Goldsmiths, University of London.

The questionnaire takes 5 - 10 minutes to fill in. The data will be strictly confidential and anonymous.

We very much appreciate your participation in this survey!

Section 1: You and your involvement in Law Centres

1. Which Law Centre have you been involved with, for how long and in which role? (Please start a new column after every change of Law Centre and/or role)

Law Centre Law Centre Law Centre

/Role (1) /Role (2) /Role (3) • Name of Law Centre

• Period of time

• Volunteer • Staff member • Management Committee member • Administrator • Finance Officer • Community worker • Solicitor • Director • Chair of Management • Other:committee

2. How important to you were the following factors, when you decided to work in/give your time to a Law Centre?

very fairly not very not important important important important at all Concern with meeting community needs for legal services Reasonable pay and conditions Challenging job Concern with addressing social justice issues Offers valuable experience/ builds c.v. Other (please specify):

3. Has your interest/motivation changed over time?

Yes No

If so, in what ways?

Section 2: Current issues in Law Centres

4. Research for the Law Centres Federation has raised a number of issues and concerns about the introduction of the Unified Contract system, following the Carter report. In each case, on the basis of your own experiences, please would you identify how far you agree or disagree with the following statements, that this is indeed a problem:

strongly broadly broadly strongly don’t know agree agree disagree disagree Standardised fixed fees underfund the complex debt, housing, employment, education, mental health and community care cases that law centres focus on. The Unified Contract system places increased administrative burdens on law centres. The scheme potentially fosters competition between local providers, putting at risk longstanding partnerships and collaborative ways of working. Standardised fixed fees put at risk provision and support that is specialist and challenging, encouraging Law Centres to ‘cherry pick’ particular types of cases (concentrating upon cases that can be resolved relatively simply, rather than providing holistic responses to the clusters of problems that are experienced by many vulnerable clients). Preventative work - including education work, policy work and advocacy – has been put at risk.

5. On the basis of your experiences, do you consider that there are other issues for Law Centres, too, as a result of the introduction of the Unified Contract?

Yes No

If so, what are these?

6. Overall, has the introduction of the Unified Contract had an effect on your own feelings about working in /volunteering in/ serving on the management committee of a Law Centre?

Yes No

If so, in what way(s)?

Section 3: Further details

Please tick all which apply:

7. Are you:

Male Female

8. How would you describe your ethnicity?

Black Asian Mixed Race White British White Other Other Prefer not to specify

9. Which age band are you in:

Under 30 31-40 41-50 51-60 Over 60 Prefer not to say

As a follow up to this survey, we shall be interviewing a sample of law centre workers, volunteers and management committee members, to explore their views in more detail.

If you might be prepared to be contacted for a follow up interview, please would you very kindly provide your name and contact details?

Law Centre:

Name:

Contact details (email or phone):

Appendix 2

Law Centres included:

Avon and Bristol Law Centre Leeds Law Centre Barnet Law Centre Luton Law Centre Birmingham Law Centre Newcastle Law Centre Brent Community Law Centre North Kensington Law Centre Bury Law Centre Nottingham Law Centre Cambridge House Oldham Law Centre Camden Community Law Centre Paddington Law Centre Chesterfield Law Centre Plumstead Law Centre Coventry Law Centre Rochdale Law Centre Cross Street Law Centre Saltley and Nechells Law Centre Croydon Law Centre Sheffield Law Centre Cumbria Law Centre South Manchester Law Centre Derby Citizens Advice and Law South West London Law Centre Centre Southwark Law Centre Gloucester Law Centre Streetwise Community Law Centre Greenwich Law Centre Surrey Law Centre Hackney Community Law Centre Tower Hamlets Law Centre Hammersmith and Fulham Law Vauxhall Law Centre Centre Wandsworth and Merton Law Harehills Law Centre Centre Hillingdon Law Centre Wiltshire Law Centre Kent Law Clinic Wythenshawe Law Centre Lambeth Law Centre

Appendix 3

Topic guide for semi-structured interviews with Law Centres (1 st round interviews)

1. Explore the participant’s motivation for becoming involved with Law Centres, (whether as a paid worker, volunteer or management committee member)?

2. Invite participant to summarise the history of their involvement (e.g. having started to become involved as a volunteer / or client).

3. Has the motivation for their involvement changed over time? If so, in what ways and why?

4. Does the Law Centre(s) have a particular ethos? If so, how would they describe this? How important is this for them?

5. How (if at all) might this relate to wider debates about the future of the public service ethos more generally?

6. Invite the participant to comment more specifically on their views on the impact of recent policy changes? How have these changes affected them, both in practical ways and in terms of their motivation and commitment?

7. How have these changes been managed/ coped with? And how has the participant been managing these changes and their feelings about them?

8. Are there tensions / professional dilemmas involved here? If so, how does the participant cope with these / with what coping strategies and resources to draw upon (both internal resources and external resources, including sharing tensions with colleagues / former colleagues / friends)?

9. More generally, how does the participant see the future of Law Centres, (taking account of differing / contradictory policy objectives e.g. for enabling the most disadvantaged to become active consumers of public services whilst also saving money on legal services – and for promoting ‘new and more accountable forms of professionalism’ rather than de- professionalisation?

10. How does the participant see their own future in Law Centres – or elsewhere?

Topic guide for semi-structured interviews with other stakeholders (e.g. local authorities) (2 nd round interviews)

1) How have you/ your organisation come to be supporting/ resourcing/ working in collaboration with/ in partnership with the Law Centre (initial motivation/ and continuing motivation)?

2) How would you describe your organisation’s particular relationship with the Law Centre? Has this changed over time? If so in what ways and why? Have there been differences of perspective (e.g. between councillors and officers)?

3) How would you describe the Law Centre’s particular ethos – and its particular contributions to local communities - and to access to justice more widely? (commenting on Law Centres’ own views on their specific roles and contribution including) :

• reaching particularly disadvantaged groups/ communities regardless of ability to pay for access to justice • providing holistic services to individuals/ communities/ addressing related issues such as housing/ benefits/ immigration holistically • undertaking preventative work through public legal education/ training • negotiating e.g. working with public authorities to address individual/ collective concerns in preventative ways • undertaking policy work • providing specialist advice/ support/ training to other agencies e.g. CABs and other advice services as part of holistic approach to provision within localities • taking up test cases in welfare and related areas of law

Anything else?

4) How would you describe/ summarise the current and forthcoming challenges to Law Centres including potential changes to the availability of legal aid?

5) What in your view might be relevant ways forward/ which types of approaches might be appropriate to meet these challenges, building upon Law Centres’ particular areas of expertise - and without losing Law Centres’ particular ethos?

6) More specifically how far do you think that volunteering could provide solutions/ what if any might be the limitations to volunteering in this context?

7) Any other comments/ reflections?

Topic guide for semi-structured interviews with volunteers (2 nd round interviews)

8) How have you come to be volunteering/ still volunteering (initial motivation/ and continuing motivation?

9) How would you describe your particular contribution to the Law Centre?

10) How would you describe the Law Centre’s particular ethos – and its particular contributions to local communities - and to access to justice more widely? (commenting on Law Centres’ own views on their specific roles and contribution including) :

• reaching particularly disadvantaged groups/ communities regardless of ability to pay for access to justice • providing holistic services to individuals/ communities/ addressing related issues such as housing/ benefits/ immigration holistically • undertaking preventative work through public legal education/ training • negotiating e.g. with public authorities to address individual/ collective concerns in preventative ways • undertaking policy work • providing specialist advice/ support/ training to other agencies e.g. CABs as part of holistic approach to provision within localities • taking up test cases in welfare and related areas of law

Anything else?

11) How would you describe/ summarise the current and forthcoming challenges to Law Centres?

12) What in your view might be relevant ways forward/ which types of approaches might be appropriate to meet these challenges without losing Law Centres’ particular ethos and contributions?

13) More specifically how far do you think that volunteering could provide solutions/ what if any might be the limitations to volunteering in this context?

14) Any other comments/ reflections?