EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. This report describes the evaluation of the 5 in-court advice pilots currently funded by the Scottish Executive ( SE). These pilots are located in 5 of the 49 sheriff courts across Scotland: Aberdeen, Airdrie, Dundee, Hamilton, and Kilmarnock. The pilots are intended to extend access to civil justice for people without legal representation in certain legal proceedings: small claims cases, and heritable and debt cases in summary cause procedure.
2. The evaluation investigated whether the pilots were meeting their aims and objectives and whether the service could be developed or improved to increase effectiveness. The main aims of the pilots are:
- increasing the number of clients seeking advice and assistance;
- increasing client confidence in court proceedings;
- increasing the effectiveness of court hearings;
- increasing general efficiency of the court system; and
- decreasing the number of decrees granted in absence of the defender.
The pilots also aim to encourage early intervention in cases, and to strengthen relationships with local agencies. The key findings of the evaluation are set out below, and are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 6.
Key Findings
- In-court advice services were seen to be uniquely placed within the court house, particularly able to address unmet legal need for people involved in court proceedings.
- Demand for the services is high, and current workloads are becoming more difficult to manage across the pilots. However, potentially unmet needs for the services remain.
- High levels of satisfaction with the service are evident across clients, court staff, sheriffs, and local agencies.
- The pilot clients are largely local authority tenants, and housing cases involving debt and other financial and social problems are a key feature of the service. Clients are most likely to contact the adviser in person, many via self-referral or referral from court staff or sheriffs.
- Summary procedure work dominates, and there are substantial case loads in small claims. Some work in ordinary procedure is being undertaken across the pilots.
- Forms of assistance used by the advisers are difficult to analyse because of the pilot data collecting strategy, and more work is needed to explore the balance of assistance in each service, which is important for early intervention in cases.
- The advisers make limited use of onward referrals to other local services. More than one contact with the adviser is common, and repeat consultations increase workload by over 80% across the pilots.
- The 5 pilot in-court adviser ( ICA) services are largely meeting their aims and objectives, and while advisers are generally fitting well into courts and with local agencies, some issues have arisen both locally, and more generally.
- The key issues emerging from the evaluation of the current 5 pilots concern accommodation (including health and safety), support staff for the advisers; adviser qualifications and training; early intervention in cases; further expansion of the services; and models of service provision.
Summary of Recommendations
Recommendation 1. The current pilots should continue on a longer term basis and the service should be extended nationally, so that as many people as possible have access to an in-court adviser.
Recommendation 2. There should be explicit recognition of an ICA's place within the court house and court culture, with the presumption that advisers attend key court-based meetings and contribute to relevant discussions concerning service development and court initiatives. The possibility of making mandatory referrals to advisers should be considered.
Recommendation 3. There is a need for managers to ensure dedicated support for advisers. Any current resources should be directed to specific support for the adviser, rather than the managing organisation. Administrative assistants should carry out as much of the work associated with data returns and reception as possible.
Recommendation 4. Greater support is required to allow for cover for leave, absence, and attendance at meetings. Initially, providing such support within current funding levels should be explored. For instance, it is recommended that pilot managers consider how the increased use of trained volunteers could support ICAs. However, it may also be necessary to re-visit funding levels for the busiest courts, or if further roll-out or expansion of existing services is considered.
Recommendation 5. Citizens Advice Scotland ( CAS) and the SE should consider providing greater central provision and co-ordination of services, including access to the CAS information database for all advisers, training, technical support and the production of information leaflets. Further, we recommend that the SE expedites access to the Scottish Legal Aid Board ( SLAB) legal support line for ICAs.
Recommendation 6. One website should provide basic information and contact details for all services, including standardised email addresses. CAS, the Scottish Court Service ( SCS) and SE, the three organisations most involved with the ICA pilots, should consider which should host this, and how they can include further ICA related information on their websites.
Recommendation 7. Where possible advisers should be located within public areas, clearly signposted, ideally close to the court reception or the summary/small claims court. If this is impossible, it should not preclude the provision of an in-court advice service, but in all cases responsibility for the adviser's health and safety needs to be clarified and set out in contractual arrangements.
Recommendation 8. The method of collecting monitoring data from advisers should be reviewed, and the SE and CAS data collection and monitoring frameworks combined, as soon as possible. In making these changes, input from the current advisers should be sought.
Recommendation 9. The ICA objective to minimise casework through onward referral needs revisiting, in the light of evidence presented in this evaluation and once improved data about the work of the ICAs is available. The Executive should also consider how to address difficulties in referring cases onwards where local advice agencies are depleted.
Recommendation 10. While allowing lay representation within courts is a matter for sheriffs' discretion, we recommend that following consultation, a decision is taken on whether to include ordinary cases as part of ICA operation.
Recommendation 11. Future service development should not be overly prescriptive, but should allow for adaptation to local court cultures and circumstances.
Recommendation 12. Since early local attempts have been unsuccessful, we recommend that a co-ordinated approach is made by the Executive to explore further the possibility of promoting ICA services at an early stage by enclosing ICA information with housing department summonses, and considering the feasibility of extending this to all other summonses in eligible cases.