Review
Topic
(name
of Review) |
The provision of
debt and money advice to the residents of Oxfordshire.
|
Review
Reference Code |
CS011 |
Parent
Scrutiny Committee |
Community
Safety |
Lead
Member Review Group
(Cllr’s
involved) |
Councillors Jenny
Hannaby, Charles Mathew, Olive McIntosh-Stedman and Bill Service |
Member
responsible for tracking
(nominate
one Cllr) |
To
be decided |
Officer
Support
(Scrutiny
Review Officer lead) |
Julian
Hehir & a.n.other |
Rationale
(key
issues and/ or reason for doing the Review) |
· The
issue has been raised by the Head
of Community Safety and Trading Standards
· This is an area of
development which is not currently identified in the Community Safety Directorate’s
Business Plan.
· It is a timely scrutiny
of services provided externally to the Council.
· The Northern Ireland
Trading Standards Agency recently carried out a review into this topic and
decided to contract a third party agency to provide financial and debt advice
to residents. It is intended that this and other models could be explored
during this review.
· Scrutiny of this
issue is timely, given public perception, concerns and the “credit crunch”. |
|
|
· To evaluate the availability,
effectiveness and quality (the latter against agreed quality standards and
indicators) of the current provision of debt and money advice to Oxfordshire
residents. (This will include identifying organisations, other than CABs, who
provide advice and services).
· To explore the
extent to which voluntary advice agencies are able to attract suitably
skilled and knowledgeable staff to deliver advice.
· To examine how the
arrangements for money and debt advice fit within a national funding
framework; (Citizens Advice Bureaux were allocated significant grants to
provide this service).
· To establish the
extent of “unmet demand” for advice: Are people being turned away, or advised
to “self help” through the provision of general guidance or indeed, referred
to private, commercial financial advisers because of overwhelming numbers?
· To consider whether
OCC should do more to support and deliver money and debt advice, in accordance
with the voluntary sector ‘compact’. |
Indicators
of Success
(what
factors would tell you what a good Review should look like) |
The Review:
- Will have
identified who is in need of the appropriate advice.
- Will have
identified the public’s understanding/perception of accessibility to
debt and money advice
- Will have
identified who currently provides and who in future may provide debt and
money advice.
- Will have
established the extent, skill levels, training provided and needed of those
offering debt and money advice.
- Will have an
established a central record of those seeking debt and money advice.
- Will have produced
a brief review report as the basis for a whole committee question and
answer session.
- Will have
recommended/identified specific ways forward and a basis for further
work, as the result of the report and committee session – if appropriate.
|
Methodology/
Approach
(what
types of enquiry will be used to gather evidence and why) |
- Secondary
research via a desk based review of the topic.
- Primary
research through:
- consultation
- face to face
interviews
- public (committee)
meeting/inquiry
- site visits
- Benchmarking/making
comparisons with what other authorities do well/not so well; regional
CABs.
- “Client
journeys”.
- Interviewing
officers/”witnesses”.
- “Ask
Oxfordshire” (formerly Citizen’s Panel) canvassing, post December
Committee.
|
|
|
· Nigel Strick - Head
of Trading Standards; Kate Davies, Richard Webb (OCC Trading Standards).
· Other local
authority Trading Standards’ Services including the Lead Officers for
Northern Ireland Trading Standards and the Lead officer for Debt and Money
Advice in Scotland.
· Citizens Advice
Bureau.
· Head Offices of
regional CABs to establish if Oxfordshire is typical in addressing the need
for debt and money advice or if it is at one end of the spectrum or the other.
· Office of Fair
Trading (with respect to research on the levels of need for advice).
· The Financial
Services Authority.
· National Debtline.
· The Money Advice
Trust.
· OCC Partnership and
Communities Team.
· Voluntary Sector Development
Team.
· Other local advice
agencies.
· Clients.
(It is likely
that all of the witnesses listed will be involved during the pre-Committee
scrutiny and that the Trading Standards Officers will be invited to the
Committee to respond to questions).
|
Specify
Evidence Sources for Documents
(which
to look at) |
· Oxfordshire County Council Corporate Plan 2008-12 and in particular,
(see below) the Sustainable Community Strategy priorities –
- Healthy and thriving
communities and
- Tackling the cycle
of deprivation.
· Local Area Agreement
1 and 2.
· The Northern Ireland
Trading Standards commissioning review on debt and money advice
· The Observer 5/10/08 – “Debt Samaritans in high demand”.
· Citizens Advice
Bureau Advice Guide.
· National Debtline.
· Money Advice Trust –
Money Advice Quality Model (MAQM).
· Other Trading
Standards Services’ websites (probably including Birmingham City Council’s
debt and money advice service).
|
Specify
Site Visits
(where
and when) |
- Citizens Advice Bureau (at least one of the 20 locally) – likely
to be one that offers debt and money advice and another that does not
and in the case of the latter, to identify the reasons why the advice is
not offered.
- Hertfordshire (possibly).
|
Specify
Evidence Sources for Views of Stakeholders
(consultation/ workshops/
focus groups/ public meetings) |
· “Expert
witness” interviews
· Consultation
· Case
studies
· Site
visits.
· Select
committee question and answer session. |
Oxfordshire
Partnership
How does this Review relate
to:
· Sustainable
Community Strategy
· Targets
contained within it
· Our
Partners? |
It relates to the
priorities: “Healthy and thriving communities” and “Tackling the cycle of
deprivation”.
The
voluntary sector?
|
Publicity
requirements
(What
is needed – fliers, leaflets, radio broadcast, press-release, etc.) |
N/A at this stage |
Resource
requirements
· Person-days
· Expenditure |
15
£500
(for site and other authority visits) |
Barriers/
dangers/ risks
(identify
any weaknesses and potential pitfalls) |
- Managing the
narrow scope of this work without expanding it into further, more
detailed investigation, at this stage.
- Difficulties
in accessing client case studies.
- Difficulties
in keeping to the very tight projected timescale.
- Not achieving
review objectives.
- Practicality
of implementing recommendations.
|
Projected
start date |
October
2008 |
Draft
Report Deadline |
1 December
2008 Community
Safety Committee |
Meeting
Frequency |
TBD |
Projected
completion date |
Post
1 Dec 2008 CS Committee for the write up of select committee & further
recommend-
ations. |
When
to evaluate impact and response |
12
months after considered by Cabinet |
|
|
|
|
|