Access to Justice for Disadvantaged Communities

Mayo, Marjorie

• Publisher: Policy Press
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781447320852
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politik & Internationale Beziehungen
• Subtopic: Sozialpolitik

Access to justice for all, regardless of the ability to pay, has been a core democratic value. But this basic human right has come under threat through wider processes of restructuring, with an increasingly market-led approach to the provision of welfare. Professionals and volunteers in Law Centres in Britain are struggling to provide legal advice and access to welfare rights to disadvantaged communities. Drawing upon original research, this unique study explores how strategies to safeguard these vital services might be developed in ways that strengthen rather than undermine the basic ethics and principles of public service provision. The book explores how such strategies might strengthen the position of those who provide, as well as those who need, public services, and ways to empower communities to work more effectively with professionals and progressive organisations in the pursuit of rights and social justice agendas more widely.

APPENDIX 1

Research methodology and questionnaire

The research set out to explore the impacts of public service modernisation as these agendas were being experienced and the dilemmas that were being faced by professionals and volunteers providing legal services within Law Centres. The study was planned to take place in three stages, starting with a literature review and postal/electronic survey of Law Centre staff and volunteers in England (including management committee members/trustees) to obtain benchmarks for the second stage. This second stage 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 then involve focus group discussions to explore preliminary findings and test conclusions before completing the research and moving into the final dissemination stage. The original timeframe envisaged that this would all be completed by 2011.

In the event however, the start of the project was delayed due to circumstances beyond the team’s control. Although the research subsequently got back on track (albeit on a revised schedule, concluding in March 2012) the context was already changing rapidly. Law Centres were experiencing the impact of the implementation of funding changes including the uncertain outcomes of competitive tendering processes.

Following the election of the Coalition government in May 2010, public policy towards resourcing legal aid came under review, with new legislation being introduced, leading to further significant challenges for Law Centres, raising fundamental questions about their longer-term futures. The Law Centres’ umbrella body, the LCF (subsequently renamed the Law Centres Network), estimated that a significant proportion of Law Centres would have very uncertain futures. During the research period several Law Centres closed or reduced their operations, some staff members were made redundant and further financial challenges were being anticipated in the wake of more recent public expenditure decisions. Despite this, however, the annual report for 2010–11 (Law Centres Federation, 2011) was entitled ‘Weathering the Storm’, testifying to the LCF’s ‘optimism in the face of austerity’ together with their determination to safeguard services, despite these challenges. As the co-chairs’ concluded ‘Legal aid may be going, but our clients are not going to disappear. And nor are we’ (Law Centres Federation, 2011).

This changing and increasingly problematic context required some flexibility in the research strategy, as subsequent sections outline. It also required some sensitivity. There were occasions when those who had so generously agreed to be interviewed were evidently stressed. The researchers needed to take account of the challenges facing Law Centres, including the threat of redundancies for staff and 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 had been 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.

Following consultation with the umbrella body, the LCF the questionnaire was administered electronically as well as by post with questions kept to a minimum, to take account of the then current time pressures on Law Centre staff. This appendix concludes with details of the questionnaire.

Despite some initial doubts as to the extent to which the survey would be completed at all, in these circumstances, the final total of completed questionnaires was 107. In total these replies referred to experiences in 25 different Law Centres (out of a total which was given as 55 at that time). These covered a range of Law Centres, urban and rural, large and small, including longer and more recently established ones. Appendix 2 provides details of the 43 Law Centres that were included in the research, overall (including the interviews as well as the survey responses).

At this point it should also be emphasised that the Law Centres varied considerably in terms of their histories, funding, size, organisational structures, overall focus and the areas of law that they covered (with varying administrative and funding procedures and processes). This meant that issues identified in any one Law Centre would not necessarily have applied in the same ways elsewhere. And the impact of subsequent policies and further potential changes to these may have been 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. Appendix 3 provides the topic guides for these and subsequent semi-structured interviews. Interviews were 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, added minor points of clarification, or identified comments that should not be directly quoted in case this could identify particular individuals.

The transcripts were analysed and themes identified, using NVivo software.

An Interim Report, summarising the findings from this analysis was then circulated to those who had participated and their views invited, for further discussion. The reality was, however, that although a few did express satisfaction at receiving feedback, there was very limited response, overall. This was a very challenging period for Law Centres in relation to tendering processes which might help to explain why it was difficult to engage in more detailed discussions at that stage.

Having completed this round of interviews it was decided, in addition, to interview a range of other stakeholders. This was to obtain their views on the issues in question together with their views on Law Centres’ strategies for how to survive in such a challenging climate, without compromising their ethos and values. This next round of interviews provided triangulation, enabling the researchers to compare and contrast the views – and claims – of Law Centre staff and volunteers with the views of other stakeholders. 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’ staff with knowledge and experience of working with Law Centres, local authority officers and local councillors, representatives of other funding agencies (including the LSC), 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 w...