Evaluation: Money Advice Outreach Pilotswww.lsrc.org.ukResponsibility of Legal Services Research Centre (LSRC)

Three evaluation phases: multiple perspectives variety of research methods impact and processes of pilots

Phase I: Target GroupsFace-to-face survey in five different outreach location types

Phase II: Provider and Partner PerspectiveInterviews with project coordinators, debt advisers, location partners and stakeholders; case studies; dissemination workshop; follow-up research

Phase III: Client and Target GroupsIn-depth, qualitative interviewsCost-effectiveness analysis on closed client cases

First Phase Evaluationwww.lsrc.org.ukSurvey of 563 people using different outreach locations types included in the pilots:

Family and children centresCredit unionsHousing officesCommunity centresPrisons

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

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 exclusionUnemploymentSocial housingLone parenthoodIllness and disabilityIncome below 10,000

Financial exclusion73% of prison interviewees51% of credit union interviewees32% of housing office interviewees31% of family and children centre interviewees19% of community centre interviewees

Results First Phase Evaluation Reaching people who do not seek mainstream advice Hard-to-reach interviewees?

Had not received advice when in real financial difficulties31% of non-prison interviewees90% 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 future16% 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

Benefits of Outreach Advice from the Perspective of Target Groups

Because its 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 www.lsrc.org.ukECOTEC/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

Selected Initial Conclusionswww.lsrc.org.uk Benefits of outreach adviceAccessible and frequently visitedMultiple advice services in one locationPeople 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

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

Pilots either just up-and-running or due to start soonSample of individual location sites randomly selected, 5 locations within each type of location, giving 25 locations at which to interviewPeople were randomly asked for interviews in non-prison locations. In prisons, interviewees were pre-selected by prison staff.

86% thought that the interview location was a good place to receive advice. There were differences across location types. For example, family and children centre interviewees seemed slightly less positive, although 80% still thought they were a good place.

86% thought that the interview location was a good place to receive advice. There were differences across location types. For example, family and children centre interviewees seemed slightly less positive, although 80% still thought they were a good place.

86% thought that the interview location was a good place to receive advice. There were differences across location types. For example, family and children centre interviewees seemed slightly less positive, although 80% still thought they were a good place.