Telephone legal advice hotlines: nine tentative conclusions

Below are a set of nine tentative conclusions from a survey of research on telephone hotlines around the world. Any comment on them would be welcome. Just email it in. Also email if you would like a copy of the full report from which they come. This will, in due course, be available on the International Legal Aid Group website (ilag-net.org).

Hotlines vary and are of very different types which cannot really be measured against each other. Material differences include: (a) function. Hotlines are organised on a spectrum from ‘front end’ to ‘dead end’ ie whether they are seen as a gateway to other services or whether they are the service itself; (b) integration. Some telephone only services are, nevertheless, integrated with full or partial further representation or advice even if the client maintains contact through the telephone gateway. Others give only a ‘one shot’ answer on the telephone. (c) level. Some services offer only referral: others hold themselves out as dispute solvers. (d) follow up. Some services follow up callers to increase the likelihood that advice is taken and, thereby, place emphasis on whether the client’s problem has been solved. Others see their role as giving advice and do not check to see if it is followed. (e) esearched information and monitoring. Some services strive to measure outcomes; some few seek to measure hotline effectiveness against other methods of delivery; most measure just outputs. In any event, it is genuinely difficult to measure the relative effectiveness of different types of assistance because of identifying similar types of problem against which comparison can be made. (f) organisation. There are various ways in which a hotline may be organised – varying, at one extreme, to a disembodied machine to various kinds of ‘warm bodies’. This is discussed below.  Particular attention should be paid to the lessons of hotlines set up as a service for members of an organisation who might see themselves as paying for and therefore have greater ownership and expectation (such as the members of the American Association of Retired Persons).

However, as somewhat sweeping generalisations, these seem to be the findings of such research as has been done.

  1. Most clients, but not all, rate hotlines as helpful. This does not, however, necessarily correlate with usefulness.
  2. The benefit of the hotline expands with the depth of services offered. The best results are obtained when the hotline is the ‘front end’ of a system that can extend through assistance to full representation.
  3. Follow up letters confirming advice and later contact to check on action increase effectiveness. In particular, the clients with the following characteristics should be called back: (a) The recommended action is one where clients are less likely to obtain a favourable outcome: they are representing themselves in court; dealing with a government agency; or obtaining legal assistance from another provider.(b) The client is less likely to obtain a favourable outcome because of their characteristics or the nature of the problem.
  4. Hotlines work best for better educated, more settled clients and worst for those who have complex problems, communication difficulties, mental problems or are otherwise vulnerable or lead unsettled lives.
  5. Telephone advice may take longer than oral advice for the same result.
  6. Clients tend to prefer face to face services. Some may not follow telephone advice that is given to them.
  7. A good hotline is likely to have certain characteristics eg good supervision and management, good technique (eg asking client to repeat advice), follow up written information, follow up calls, effective call back system and technology, ability to review documentation, ‘warm body’ advisers capable of advising on the resolution of smaller problems, adequate training of advisers and effective ways of dealing with conflicts between clients.
  8. To obtain good coverage a hotline must be well promoted.
  9. Take up may be unpredictable – either lower than expected due to barriers or overwhelming as new demand is identified or users become repeat callers.

Written by

Roger Smith is an expert in domestic and international aspects of legal aid, human rights and access to justice.

No Comments Yet.

Leave a Reply

Message