110 likes | 244 Views
Evaluation: Money Advice Outreach Pilots. Responsibility of Legal Services Research Centre (LSRC) Three evaluation phases: multiple perspectives variety of research methods impact and processes of pilots Phase I: Target Groups
E N D
Evaluation: Money Advice Outreach Pilots • Responsibility of Legal Services Research Centre (LSRC) • Three evaluation phases: • multiple perspectives • variety of research methods • impact and processes of pilots • Phase I: Target Groups • Face-to-face survey in five different outreach location types • Phase II: Provider and Partner Perspective • Interviews with project coordinators, debt advisers, location partners and stakeholders; case studies; dissemination workshop; follow-up research • Phase III: Client and Target Groups • In-depth, qualitative interviews • Cost-effectiveness analysis on closed client cases www.lsrc.org.uk
First Phase Evaluation • Survey of 563 people using different outreach locations types included in the pilots: • Family and children centres • Credit unions • Housing offices • Community centres • Prisons • Questionnaire • Aim: Assess the suitability of a number of different outreach location types for the delivery of money advice to ‘hard-to-reach’ and disadvantaged groups www.lsrc.org.uk
Results First Phase Evaluation • Reaching deprived and financially excluded areas or groups • 75% interviewees lived in the top 20 per cent of the most deprived areas in England • High proportion of people with demographics indicative of social exclusion • Unemployment • Social housing • Lone parenthood • Illness and disability • Income below £10,000 • Financial exclusion • 73% of prison interviewees • 51% of credit union interviewees • 32% of housing office interviewees • 31% of family and children centre interviewees • 19% of community centre interviewees
Reaching people who do not seek mainstream advice – ‘Hard-to-reach’ interviewees? • Had not received advice when in real financial difficulties • 31% of non-prison interviewees • 90% of prison interviewees • Of non-prison interviewees who did seek advice, nearly one third did not go to an independent money adviser but to creditors, family and friends • Would not seek professional advice if serious money problems in the future • 16% of non-prison interviewees • 22% among financially excluded • Despite living close to mainstream advice services, many interviewees were unaware of this • Higher percentages among financially excluded Results First Phase Evaluation
Benefits of Outreach Advice from the Perspective of Target Groups • ‘Because it’s a professional establishment, people would know what they are talking about and people would trust the advice they gave.’ • Interviewee in a housing office • ‘Because it is a community centre, and all kinds of people are coming in, it would be better to walk in here than walk into a debt advice centre. You would not stand out as much.’ • Interviewee in a community centre • ‘People like myself have no money to shell out for transport.’ • Interviewee in a children and family centre • ‘The location is central. It is easy to find. They have done good market research.’ • Interviewee in a credit union • ‘It would take a burden off people here. And be a chance for people to say “I can sort things out”. A chance to speak to independent people to help sort out their problems, not the officers.’ • Interviewee in a prison
Second Phase Evaluation: First Findings • ECOTEC/Personal Finance Research Centre • First Findings • Outreach established where money advice not usually available • Reaching financially excluded people who would not otherwise access advice • Challenges of outreach work and client groups may affect ability to achieve targets • Early engagement with partners important • Increased awareness about money advice among partners • Working in different types of outreach locations www.lsrc.org.uk
Selected Initial Conclusions • Benefits of outreach advice • Accessible and frequently visited • Multiple advice services in one location • People trust locations they are familiar with • -> Importance of high quality advice • Importance of closing knowledge gaps on the availability of mainstream advice: public legal education & financial capability • Outreach advice needs to be moulded to the needs of its target groups and nature of outreach locations • Importance of partnership working • Findings are of interest to other parts of the community and bodies that deliver public services www.lsrc.org.uk
Further Information • First phase evaluation report available at: • www.lsrc.org.uk/publications/Outreach.pdf • Overview of evaluation approach and first findings: see Legal Action October issue, 2007 • All other evaluation reports due in spring 2008 • Contact: • alexy.buck@legalservices.gov.uk • www.lsrc.org.uk