Forum Home → Discussion → Access to justice and advice sector issues → Thread
0844 Numbers
Our local CAB appears to have signed up to the national CAB advice line scheme where you contact them via a 0844 number. The CAB themselves recognise on their website ” 0844 and 0845 numbers are more expensive to call than geographic numbers for some people ” . I know there was some campaigning when GPS used the 0844 service due to the extra costs involved and there is evidence that majority of calls now originate from mobile phones rather than landlines making it even more expensive. From experience our clients tend to use mobiles pay as you go therefore only using the phone when necessary and also not incurring line charges etc. Again those clients that use landlines are predominantly covered by inclusive minute packages however 0844 falls outside the scope of 0844 minutes. I am also uneasy that some companies can actually make up to 2p per call via a rebate scheme for organisations using the 0844 number although I am not suggesting that CAB are doing this. We are having a debate within the team as to what we should tell clients who for whatever reason cannot access CAB by an alternative method or indeed whether we should be referring at all knowing the cost. At this time with the number of welfare reforms being implemented is the CAB excluding vulnerable groups they set out to assist on the grounds of affordability ? Anybody any thoughts ? In particular CAB advisors who may have more knowledge how the scheme works.
The CAB’s Adviceline system is supposed detect callers who are ringing from a mobile, and immediately provide a recorded message offering an alternative 03 number (this number is not intended to be published publicly). The 03 number should cost about 5p per minute, depending on the provider’s tariff. This is the same cost as the 0844 number from a landline.
There was some debate about all this when the 0844 number was introduced. As I recall, it was felt that the cost of subsidising an 0800 number would just be unaffordable for bureaux.
Still, it’s not ideal (in my personal opinion of course, not speaking for my employer or for the national body). A particular concern has been callers who do not get through to an adviser, and have to call again, incurring another charge. Citizens Advice has been considering some sort of queuing system to avoid having to make a repeat call, but I’m not sure how far that has got.
By the way, in CAB parlance, giving someone a phone number is just a “signpost”, not a referral. My bureau has an agreement with other local agencies, where they can do a full referral to us, which avoids the need for the client to either get through on the phone or attend a drop-in session. Maybe you could ask your local bureaux about this? We expect referring agencies to obtain the client’s consent, and send us the client’s details, the client vulnerability which required bypssing the normal contact routes, and an assessment of the problem including any relevant deadlines. We then try to arrange a full appointment with an appropriate adviser. Referrals aren’t appropriate where someone just needs general information, so we rely on the referring agency to assess that a full advice appointment is required.
Thanks for your response. We currently have a two way arrangement for welfare rights referrals with CAB ( avoiding duplication etc. ) , we don’t have the capacity to do that with every query ( housing , debt etc. ) and as you rightly point out it is the signposting thats the issue for us.
For the sake of completeness as much as anything, I wanted to highlight The Helpline’s Association mobile-friendly freephone scheme.
We implemented this at Gingerbread a few years back, it’s pretty straightforward to apply and the costs were relatively reasonable, although of course it is an extra cost.
Say No To 0870 Tony?
We try to ensure that clients can directly access our service in several ways at Taunton CAB this includes; phone, email, face-to-face, text, fax or letter. We also have ‘info hubs’ where clients can self-inform and use an on-line Somerset-wide common referral system which numerous organisations have signed up to - including the NHS. We are not part of adviceline and still use our 01 number.
The problem that CAB (in my opinon… not an organisational view) has always had is that because each bureau is an independent charity the way in which advice is provided - and is paid for - varies from area to area. The ‘CAB adviceline’ is attempting to bring consistency across the country and a faster service for clients (this is admirable and the current testimonials seem to suggest it is acheiving this aim) however setting up a virtual call centre network is not cheap and bureaux have seen significant cuts to funding.
My two-peneth worth is done.
Hi Tony
I agree with you about quality being variable, but in relation to gateway assessors (GA) and session supervisors I only have experience of my CAB…. we have devised our own GA training programme so it is more in-depth and we have found GA has reduced client waiting times and it ensures that if clients need an appointment they see the right adviser much quicker (we have a variety of paid advisers and generalist volunteers: LSC, Debt, Benefits, Employment, MS, Macmillan, Mental Health). As a result of GA we have been able to add appointments to our calendar in our main bureau and offer appointments at one of outreaches too, so for us GA has been a good experience. I think we were lucky to be one of the pilot bureau.
Our session supervisors (one for each day of the week) each have an area of expertise; benefits, housing, employment, debt, court desk and so provide good support for the advisers, many of them also provide adviser and development training to the staff. We do volunteer staff and volunteer feedback consultations every year and the supervisor role is routinely noted to be important/essential to receptionists, GA and advisers.
I know I am lucky to be part of an excellent bureau the question is how do we all start ‘singing from the same songbook’? Can this really happen whilst we are all independent?
But there is nothing new about ‘gateway’. We introduced this system in the bureau I worked in in London more than 20 yrs ago due to ever increasing demand. At that time I recall, for example, that Hackney CAB saw the first 20 people in the queue and told the rest to come back tomorrow (which is one way of managing demand / resources).
The problem with ‘drop in’ sessions are that its not possible to assess if the extent of the clients question is is very basic or requires in depth/urgent action. The queue starts forming long before opening time, the waiting room fills up, clients wait a long time, the doors have to be closed early and advisers get stress because they no nothing about the client before they start the interview.
Gateway is not a perfect way of managing demand / resourses (is there one?) and depends on many factors but surely provides a better quality of advice overall?
The question is what comes after gateway when that stops being an effective way of managing demand?
Or is the concern more about the quality of advice given by some CABx rather than how clients access that bureau?
An interesting exercise to carry out is the following:
1) Work out how many staff hours there are in the bureau - add up the paid staff hours and the number of volunteers times their hours committment.
2) Work out how many advice hours there are in the bureau - interview rooms x opening hours plus phone lines x operating times.
3) See what the maximum percentage of staff hours are that can be used for advice. e.g. 400 hours staff and 40 hours advice = 10% (Result 1)
4) Now work out how many of the advice cases a week on average go on to casework and what the average length of time spent on casework is. e.g. 30 x 2.5 = 75 hours (Result 2)
5) Look at the percentage of staff time that’s delivering advice. Double check, check again and then think deeply.
6) If brave, post here.
Gareth - you forget to add in:
(a) add the funders objectives and targets
(b) how many different directions those targets pull you in divided by x over y.
(c) how much time is spent providing stats to demonstrate you have met those targets rather than providing advice etc.
(d) how much time could have been spent interviewing /advising a client rather than hanging on the phone trying to get through to the DWP/TS/LA/utility co./loan co. etc. etc.
(e) = etc etc
Gareth - you forget to add in:
(a) add the funders objectives and targets
(b) how many different directions those targets pull you in divided by x over y.
(c) how much time is spent providing stats to demonstrate you have met those targets rather than providing advice etc.
(d) how much time could have been spent interviewing /advising a client rather than hanging on the phone trying to get through to the DWP/TS/LA/utility co./loan co. etc. etc.
(e) = etc etc
Hee hee - I have just hit the imaginary rightsnet ‘like’ button :)
sorry I forgot to add:
(f) Oh **** we don’t actually have any time left to advise any clients.