Page 117 - Reforming Benefits Decision-Making

a) Those worst hit by the pandemic have been those who were already
339
struggling to access advice.
b) The switch to remote advice delivery posed similar challenges to those
experienced in the context of UC’s digital by default system – remote
services delivery proved challenging for some clients particularly those
340
who have difficulty with technology. Face-to-face advice cannot be
replaced for some clients. The most vulnerable clients still need holistic
face-to-face advice services, however a hybrid model of advice using a
mix of face-to-face, telephone and video at the preference of the client
will be likely to be the most effective way to deliver advice going
forward.
c) Telephone was the method of remote advice delivery most frequently
used by providers during the pandemic. The majority of respondents to
the survey felt that the delivery of remote advice was effective. However,
this could indicate respondents’ views of the mechanics of the
technology rather than the effectiveness of advice delivery. In so far as
341
telephone was the preferred method of advice delivery, this is likely
because advice providers were insufficiently prepared for providing
online services, rather than because it necessarily works better. Research
into the relative benefits of video and telephone advice would be of
assistance in shaping advice delivery models of the future.
d) For hard-to-reach clients it is important to understand the different modes
of communication in communities and what services people already
come into contact with, in order to use these as channels to provide
342
information and advice.
e) Active referrals, where clients are asked for their consent to pass their
details on to another organisation so that that organisation can contact
them directly, work much better than signposting and organisations
should try to do this wherever possible.

339 N. Creutzfeld and D. Sechi, ‘Social Welfare [law] advice provision during the pandemic in England
and Wales: a conceptual framework’, Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, Volume 43, 2021 –
Issue 2, p.156
340 Ibid, p.163.
341 Ibid, p.161
342 As explained in paragraph 4.40 above.

108