Is it reasonable for an Advice Agency to apply LSC mean-testing criteria to clients requesting help with completing DLA application forms.

For example exclude clients whose household is on a low income or parents on a decent wage wanting help completing Child DLA forms?

If so how would it fit in with e.g. the general ethos or principles of NACAB?

It's no more or less reasonable than applying means-testing for assistance with any other welfare benefits advice and assistance carried out under an LSC contract. Completion of forms generally does not qualify as "legal advice" under an LSC contract - a DLA form, due to its complexity and the fact that a claimant's statements go directly to the legal issue of entitlement, is an exception.

Many agencies have seen their local authority funding cut - or the local authority requiring that they hold an LSC specialist contract before they will consider funding, so for many LSC funding is the only game in town. Without that funding (such as it is) many agencies would be advising far fewer clients or would have shut altogether. Most agencies with LSC funding would currently need each worker to be taking on 6 - 8 new cases each week to meet the contract - when you factor in no-shows and clients who say they are eligible for Legal Help but then turn out not to be, I'd imagine there are very few that can take on additional clients/cases for which they know they will receive no funding at all.

That said, I'm no defender of the LSC or of means-testing, but that particular battle was fought and lost without a fight long ago - i.e. back in '98/'99 when the advice sector generally accepted LSC funding as the answer to local authority budget cuts. There was always going to be a price but very few recognised that - and "pragmatism" when it came to funding, at least amongst management and management committees always won the day even where advisers themselves raised concerns.

But then there's much that has been compromised or lost throughout the advice sector - the Welfare Rights Unit in my own local authority has succesfully bid (against other agencies and, to look at it one way, thereby reducing their funding) for contracts from the local health authority to provide outreach advice in GPs surgeries. Other than through that work (funded by the health authority, remember, not the council) the only clients it will now take on are those who may qualify for DLA/AA. And the reason for that decision is that those clients can then be charged for care services provided by the LA (needless to say, they also charge the maximum allowed under the fairer charging regime). I'm aware that my own local authority is far from being the exception in having such policies.......

We complete DLA forms regardless of whether the client is eligible or not.

I know bureau where the specialists only see LA clients for the reasons set out so well above but, i would expect that the volunteers in that bureau would then see the clients who are not LA.

I think i'd better reword the question because i've completely mangled the meaning of the question that was in my mind when i attempted to post it trying not be heretical (still great argument Past Caring, shame about my lack of eloquence).

Here goes!

Is it usual for a large bureau to confine the completion of DLA forms solely and exclusively to their LSC funded workers. so other workers (welfs) not funded by LSC and the bureaus unpaid workers (i.e. volunteers) do not complete DLA forms?

In the context of e.g. local (Dorset/Somerset) disability and Age Concern advice projects relying on volunteers to complete AA/DLA forms.

I really am curious how a large bureau within a largely homogenised advice scene (we don't have an eclectic advice community in the same way some areas have) that doesn't make use of its other welfs (non LSC) and unpaid workers for DLA form completion and reach as many people as possible would fit into the general ethos or principles of NACAB?

Incidentally, i'm one of the mid 90's generation of welfs who got into paid advice work via volunteering for a CAB, spurred on by a really inspirational deputy manager, who valued all of us alike paid or unpaid. Hence my questions and my bemusement.

it's the organisation that's got the contract, not any individual worker within it.

so, for example, when i worked in a firm that had a contract, the people who did legal helps were the people doing the work in that particular area of law .. in my case, benefits ....but i might also complete a legal help and then refer client on to person with relevant specialism...and vice versa...

I can only speak with regard to the 3 CABx I have worked in, but based on that sample I would say unusual, all either allowed volunteers to do DLA or did a mixture of LSC and volunteer advisers sharing the workload on the basis of eligibility.

If there is provision for client to be referred elsewhere for DLA's to be done by other organisations without detriment to the client, I don't think such an arrangement would be contrary to the CAB ethos. But as someone who moved from volunteering into paid advice before the concept of the gateway interview, I can't say as I like the idea of it. And now I've come perilously close to saying "it wouldn't have happened in my day."

Thanks Sue for your response, really helpful.