Guest post by Dr Liz Curran, an associate professor at Nottingham Law School and honorary associate professor at Australian National University
Curran: Time for change
In July, I completed a second-year evaluation of a health justice project in Australia that targets an Aboriginal community experiencing mental health issues – Legal Futures reported on the initial findings a year ago given the continuing interest in England and Wales in co-locating health and legal services.
The groups I studied are indicative of those worldwide who miss out on legal support with civil law problems such as homelessness, evictions, enabling income support and discriminatory practices.
The problem is ubiquitous and prevalent. The findings and recommendations in my latest report provide evidence that putting lawyers in trusted settings works for marginalised communities and vulnerable people and has many positive impacts.
But I am not wedded to the rise of health justice partnerships alone – rather, the idea is to provide multi-disciplinary integrated practice, at points where those likely to be excluded seek help.
My recent report builds on the findings of another study on integrated legal practice, the Invisible Hurdles Program, the longest longitudinal research and impact evaluation of a legal assistance service in Australia by an independent research evaluator. It provides ideas on how to ensure effective reach and service.
Such integrated practice can occur within early childhood services, in state schools in deprived areas, food banks, older persons organisations, women’s shelters, family and child counselling services, refugee and asylum organisations, and community-based services with close connections to community groups.
This integrated model is about lawyers getting out of their offices and not expecting clients to identify the vast array of areas where there might be legal solutions, beyond those that are commonly understood by members of the public.
The reality is that most people are not aware of them and many distrust lawyers and the legal system, sometimes with good reason. They do not know the power and potential of the law to hold decision makers to account, to ensure appropriate decision making and to negotiate solutions to problems earlier and not necessarily with need to resort to court processes that can be costly, traumatic and take considerable time.
What research shows is we can get in earlier and solve problems and often other problems that are associated with these that can be social (such as family reunification), economic (income support) or health (stress and anxiety reduction).
It also addresses the root causes of problems, providing solutions to poor laws or maladministration earlier, informed by lived experiences. This saves misallocation of resources and empowers local communities.
So often participants in my research say to me after public legal education sessions how they realise that ‘knowledge is power’. Legal support can be provided alongside the services where people feel they can disclose with safety, confidentiality and if required – trauma-informed and culturally appropriate practices.
My research provides an evidence base for the UK. It shows what you can achieve with a holistic system response, with limited resources.
Organisations collaborating, innovating and holding similar visions has an impact. I see pockets of endeavours to provide holistic services in the UK. Too often it is precarious, cash strapped, limited, short term or limited in its scope due to the funding and policy settings.
Integrated legal practices working together with like-minded agencies in the UK often struggle to help people navigate the system. They are critical but are too often victims of short-term funding.
For example, the six-month navigator project at Hammersmith Fulham Law Centre in 2021 was positively evaluated during its first six months and yet, despite early release of this evaluation, was defunded within five months of starting the project, leaving clients experiencing domestic abuse stranded.
Programmes need time to gain momentum, traction for impacts to occur.
We need a rethink here in the UK. It’s not about finding more money as that is unrealistic with all the demands on the fiscal purse, as I said to a recent parliamentary inquiry. It’s about doing things differently, using the evidence base and how the system could be successful in transforming the UK’s legal aid provision.
I am happy to help the new government. There is a movement to forge health justice partnerships in the UK and some great practice, but the landscape for broader integrative practice is inhibiting. It needs a redesign and rethink to do better, ensuring consistency, best practice and use of the evidence base with tailored programmes to local communities informed by what they need.
These should be ‘bottom-up’ rather than ‘top down’ as is currently the case. A recent national government review in Australia and its recommendations (15, 22, 34, 36) might provide our new government with some ideas. My research and practice experience on integrated practice and effective partnerships and collaboration can inform how to do better.
Why is the current landscape in the UK inhibitive? What we see now is the fragmentation of services, a Legal Aid Agency with a culture of refusal as noted by a parliamentary inquiry, cuts in funding and people being referred to services outside their local area that they can’t access or which don’t exist in reality.
Artificial demarcations exist about who can do what work preventing joined up problem solving. ‘One-off advice’ offered advise people they have a strong case, but further legal expertise is often not available. Insisting clients go to multiple sites and retell their stories over again to different providers is hardly efficient . There is duplication in some support areas and then a lack of service in others i.e. people get halfway through a referral and then have nowhere else to go.
There is also the issue of lawyer retention in legal aid, retreat of the private profession from legal aid and high rates of attrition. All this signals poor investment.
A rethink taking in all the factors flagged in this article, could resolve some issues and reallocate existing money. We could harness and improve existing services to improve life outcomes for so many people who currently are forced to just give up.
A hallmark of a good democracy is the rule of law underpinned by equality before the law. What we are seeing more and more in the UK is two-tiered justice where those with resources are better off than those without, and who increasingly see the law as serving others and not for them. Time for change.
Leave a Comment