360 degree evaluation of funded face-to-face debt advice

1. Description of the programme
2. The study
3. What are the outcomes?
4. Key findings
5. What are the costs?
6. Points to consider

Description of the programme

The Money Advice Service (MAS) took over the responsibility for the funding of the 16 Financial Inclusion Fund (FIF) face-to-face debt advice projects across England and Wales in 2012. MAS changed the delivery approach to focus on increasing the number of people that debt advisers helped, shifting from a casework approach towards a one-off advice approach. MAS believed that empowering clients to take charge of their debt problems might be more positive than traditional casework. In 2012-13, FIF had a budget of £27 million to fund 150,000 advice sessions. The projects were open to anyone seeking advice, although some had identified target groups. Projects tended to serve less affluent areas.

The study

MAS commissioned Optimisa Research to conduct a six-month performance review of the new funding model, focusing on the perspectives of delivery agents and project leads, as well as on client attitudes and outcomes.

The study began with quantitative surveys of 1,902 clients, from across the range of projects, focusing on their demographics, triggers for seeking advice, their experience of the advice offered, and emotional and practical impact of the advice. Researchers then conducted 90 follow-up qualitative interviews with clients. They also conducted 51 interviews with funders, and one-to-one discussions with the project leads and a member of MAS staff to gain a better understanding of the implementation and impact of the new funding arrangements.

What are the outcomes?

• Client satisfaction with the service received
• Waiting times
• Financial behaviour
• Financial wellbeing

Key findings

Advisers and managers felt that they were maintaining good standards of advice and meeting needs, while increasing the number of sessions delivered:

• Client satisfaction levels were high (92%) and 86% of clients received at least as much support as they hoped for. 78% had started to reduce debt and 85% felt more in control of the situation.
• There were no differences between one-off and casework approaches in how clients subsequently viewed their situation, although casework clients reported greater improvement in softer outcomes such as being less worried about answering the phone or door (83% v 78%).

The move to one-off advice sessions had often reduced waiting times:

• Staff reported reductions in some cases from four to two weeks. 21% of clients reported being seen the same day and 44% within a week of first contact.
• Many staff welcomed the flexibility that the new arrangements offered, as it freed adviser time for more complex cases.

The definition of ‘one-off’ advice varied between agencies and it often related to the balance of actions taken by advisers and clients:

• While a “pure” idea of a one-off contact is likely to limit such cases to a single contact and no adviser intervention, some services offered “one-off plus”, with some actions undertaken by advisers after a single contact. Other advisers considered a series of single contacts with the client as “one-off”.
• Overall, 63% of one-off clients had more than one contact and 73% of those cases involved adviser intervention (compared with 74% and 82% for casework).

A mix of clients’ capabilities and the extent of their problems determined how far advisers could use one-off approaches:

• Larger agencies were more able to match levels of client need to the type of adviser (for instance, using volunteers for simpler one-off cases).
• Using triage systems helped to make better use of time.
• Agencies with more than one funding stream were often able to allocate clients more flexibly.

Most clients preferred face-to-face advice and most advisers considered it essential, but there was scope for other approaches:

• Face-to-face facilitated advisers to build trust, review paperwork and assess client capabilities.
• Many agencies welcomed the possibility of more telephone-based support, which also facilitated contact with clients during working hours.
• Online advice was more complex, partly for privacy and security reasons, although there was some reported client demand for e-mail support.

Staff reported some concerns about and limitations to one-off approaches:

• Some advisers were concerned that pressure to reach targets could lead to overly limited assessment of client need and inadequate follow-up. One-off approaches were sometimes unsuitable, although many clients and other staff welcomed having more flexible arrangements.
• There were reports that creditors sometimes came to agreement with advisers “within minutes” after apparently resisting negotiations with clients.

What are the costs?

Not included.

Points to consider

Methodological limitations:

The study notes variations in agency size, focus and indeed definition of “one-off advice”. There is little information about the scale of projects and no data about prior levels of service or client attitude and outcomes. The differences in definition often make it hard to make comparisons.

Applicability:

The limitations noted above mean that the findings of the study are best interpreted impressionistically. Other services should interpret views and consider definitions in line with their own approaches, client groups and service requirements.

Full report

360 degree evaluation of funded face-to-face debt advice- full report