Nine use cases of reopening after lockdown

There are probably thousands of organisations operating in the legal and advice space. Most have been challenged to adapt to the circumstances of lockdown and social distancing. Some have continued to function, albeit at lower levels, some have carried on ‘business as usual’ albeit in an online space, and some have been forced to shut their doors for now.

As lockdown eases, there is already some smart thinking about how we all adapt to the new circumstances and we think it’s worth sharing. You don’t need to reinvent the wheel, you just need to borrow someone’s idea and refine it (but please credit them and say thank you – it’s only polite!).

The nine 'types'

The following are necessarily ‘blunt’ organisation types but we hope you recognise yourselves amongst them and can learn or spark ideas and plans.

1. Grant giving organisations (including foundations) – with the exception of additional capacity demands (more money awarded faster), more flexible reporting and more collaboration between organisations, this has pretty much been business as usual. It begs the question of what do they even need an office for. Working remotely appears to work rather well with some exceptions.
2. Membership and network services – definitely challenged initially as the role of understanding the immediate needs of members and collating, curating and shaping resources became urgent, most networks (and a shout out to Law Centres Network in particular) have adapted well, provided new models of support, coordinated support online across different cohorts (operations, governance, functions) and even continued some research. Again, working remotely appears to work rather well. No need to rush back.
3. Office based advice – some of these organisations (and we include law centres, community advice organisations, local services here) suffered a shock when they had to close their doors. The ones who had prepared ‘business continuity’ and invested in more modern ways of working transitioned quickly and relatively easily – phone services routed through VOIP and telephone advice lines, video calls with clients, online interaction between teams. The ones without up to date technology and communications infrastructure suffered and resorted to pay as you go mobile phones to keep things going. Clearly social distancing and the unwillingness of many people to travel mean cramped offices are not viable. But alternating teams each week (Team A work from the office in week one, Team B in week two etc) is a very practical response. The rest of the service operates with remote working. We’ll make a nod to courts here and the volunteers that support clients. It’s possible online but not so easy – Support Through Court provides an interesting use case in itself. Citizens Advice have good things to share.
4. Training including community based – location based group training had to stop. Organisations moved training online and with positive results (Law for Life’s housing course is a great example). Reach improved (delegates didn’t have to travel), takeup numbers improved, quality was sometimes enhanced by being able to share resources more widely. Costs came down after the initial investment. There were, and are, clearly exclusions (those without digital access and connectivity) but on the whole it’s been surprisingly good. There will be a return to community based training in groups but at a much lower level.
5. Drop in services – drop in stopped. Drop in won’t/can’t return the way it was. A random group of strangers congregating in a confined space isn’t even allowed in the pub anymore. But how about this? You turn up to an appointed space, book a session and return for a timed appointment. Ideally you would book online but the drop in revision supports those who can’t book online. This also supports community advice centres – those who can’t access online services can head to the front desk (with plexi glass screen for safety) and book a session.
6. Supervised advice (face to face or helpline) – this held up surprisingly well. Some organisations struggled but others were able to supervise trainees or volunteers, run three way video (or audio) calls (volunteer, supervisor and client) or simply supervise preparation via video call and leave the volunteer with the client. Some helplines were challenged but others adapted to reviewing call recordings or moving between ‘zoom rooms’. It will continue to work – it will have to – but there might be an argument for having banks of volunteers in an office space, supported by a supervisor who they can escalate to. Although that can also be done online.
7. Community referral networks – these really suffered. The absence of physical faith communities, of after school clubs, the lack of those tiny shop fronts or offices where people cram in had a serious effect on the face to face (often digitally excluded) accessing the first point of contact. Yet social prescribing (talking across the doorstep or over the fence) and mutual aid groups have managed to keep the grass roots going. The small community organisations need to return, we need the faith groups and after school clubs but let’s ensure we ringfence provision for those who can’t access support digitally. And let’s go looking for the ‘disappeared’ (those who were cut off overnight but are gradually returning now Starbucks and McDonalds free wifi is back).
8. Scheduled clinics – these have mostly adapted well. The old school face to face ‘turn up for an evening’ stopped almost overnight but online scheduling tools and video calls (Zoom or Microsoft Teams) enabled advice clients and their advisors to get together. The coordination has been more demanding but it’s worked. Shout out to University House who have been running remote advice (advisors in London, provision in South West England) for a while and kept running smoothly throughout the pandemic and to LawWorks for coordinating ideas and resource sharing throughout their clinics networks.
9. Online provision – if you were operating online before, there’s no need to change. You’ve probably acquired some new clients but just keep making your service better and ensure those that don’t need face to face physical support can use you. Citizens Advice resources (and data) have proved invaluable.

The other frame - not just how but why and impact

The other frame for this, beyond ‘going back to the office’, is to consider how what we do, and the decisions we make, impact six key areas:

• The quality of service
• The cost of provision (per user or output and overall)
• The effectiveness of the service
• The financial sustainability
• The outcome of provision
• The well being of staff and volunteers

In most cases, quality has held up, cost has come down (not always), effectiveness has varied (learning as we go), financial sustainability has been slightly challenged (not least by the legal aid system) and outcomes are still to be determined (we need more data).

But the caveat to all this (and why the well being of staff and volunteers is so fundamental) is that home working doesn’t work for everyone and it never has. If you have small children, if you’re at personal risk, if you just don’t have the environment conducive to effective working conditions (it might be cramped, noisy or poor connectivity), it’s always going to be hard. There is work to do to better support those who find working from home a challenge. Additionally, how are we providing the ad hoc learning and development opportunities (and ad hoc support) which worked well in office environments but hasn’t quite translated online – it will require a new way of managing and leading.

There’s more work to do to ensure clients have a safe space to talk to us if their own home isn’t a safe space. Those who are shielding won’t be able to come and visit you and don’t assume everyone wants to travel to see you anyway (or even travel to work be they staff or volunteer). We need to ensure we protect face to face physical service for those who absolutely need it and steer everyone else onto some form of technology and communication supported service.

Offices and community buildings aren’t quite a thing of the past but think about what you need and why and also what you could do when you’re saving the rent money. Focus on the outcome you want to have not just ‘we always did it like this’. Can we bring services together around the person, not keep moving the person between services? Is the future the 'minimum office' with lots of working from home?

Conclusion

So in conclusion, there aren’t too many different types of ‘life after lockdown return to the building’ propositions for the legal and advice sector. You probably fit into one or two of these so let’s learn from the organisations with the bright ideas who’ve tried it and build on those successes. It’s really not worth everyone reinventing the wheel.

But a final point. Just because we can doesn’t mean we should. We need to think about the why as well as the how in moving forward to providing outcomes for our clients and our staff and volunteers.

(We’re aware this article doesn’t solve the problem or collate all the case studies - http://www.lipnetwork.org.uk/noticeboard/message/1981 is a start - so we’re asking for that to happen and for the information to be shared. This is a call to action so who wants to help?)

Thank you to my colleagues on the Legal and Advice Sector Roundtable steering group for feedback and comments on this article.