Building legal literacy in organisations that support people experiencing multiple disadvantage

ABSTRACT

We present a case study of specialist welfare advice and advocacy for people experiencing multiple disadvantage (i.e. a combination of homelessness, contact with the criminal justice system, substance misuse, mental ill health). Drawing primarily on qualitative interviews with staff and stakeholders, we demonstrate the need for, and success of, specialist benefits advice for this customer group. Substantial financial gains were awarded, providing a greater level of security and stability, which increased customers’ housing options. We highlight a need for greater recognition across organisations that work with customers experiencing multiple disadvantage, that welfare benefits are a legal entitlement. Implications for policy and practice are discussed, including the importance of: developing confidence and a ‘law informed’ mindset in frontline staff; advisors building relationships with staff to achieve this; preparatory work with partner organisations to develop a shared understanding of what is involved and expectations. Ultimately, a culture of legal literacy must be cultivated at the individual (frontline staff) and organisational (partner host) levels. Stakeholders had concerns about the future of such initiatives in the context of further funding cuts; there is a risk that legal literacy development programmes become marginalised at a time when they are most needed.

KEYWORDS:

• Welfare benefits
• specialist welfare advice
• multiple disadvantage
• legal literacy
• qualitative study

Acknowledgments

This research was made possible by The National Lottery Community Fund through VOICES. We are grateful to Andy Meakin (former Director of VOICES) for his support throughout the process. We are also grateful to the WBLL staff and the wider team from VOICES and Citizens Advice Staffordshire North and Stoke on Trent for their assistance throughout.

Disclosure statement

One of the authors (5^th Author) managed the service under evaluation, but they did not contribute to qualitative data analysis nor influence interpretation. All other authors report no competing interests to declare.

Additional information

Funding

This research was funded by The National Lottery Community Fund through VOICES.