1. National Association of Community Legal Centres
Data Consistency Project
Main Findings
28 February 2019
Polly Porteous –
Phone:

2. Data consistency project: expected outcomes
CLCs collect, understand and use accurate and consistent data and information about the services they deliver, to inform their service planning and service provision decisions.
State, territory and national governments have reliable CLC data to use for the purposes of NPA as well as reporting and service planning (local, regional, and jurisdictional).
Data consistency project: expected outcomes

3. We want to know what is actually happening on the ground with our clients, and with the services that community legal centres and family violence prevention legal services are providing
If we look at the data now, is this telling us what’s happening, or is it simply telling us that every Centre is recording things a different way?
Why is this important?

4. CLASS data: proportion of legal service types – Australia-wide change over time

5. All states – proportion of services – 2017-18

6. Individual CLCs in one state – proportion of services in each Centre – 2017-18

7. Data Consistency Project Timeline
Legal Aid NSW and AGD provided $
July 2018
NACLC (Polly), Carly (CLCQ) and Kieran (Vic Fed) scoped project
July-Aug 2018
Met with / interviewed 40 CLCs across the country incl 12 NSW CLCs
July-Nov 2018
Provided comments about National Data Standards manual
Jan 2019
CLC Data Guide – go live
March 2019
Training and other resources
April-June 2019
All training incorporated into CLASS Training

8. Findings: the main areas of inconsistency
Multiple Legal Tasks and Advices v Other Representation– how to capture ongoing legal support to self-represented clients
Counting rules for discrete services - Legal Advice with 3 problem types = 3 separate advices? Referral with 3 destinations = 3 referrals? When does one Legal Task begin and end?
Other Representation v Court/Tribunal Representation – If progresses, do you close Other and open Court/Tribunal, or change existing service type?
Findings: the main areas of inconsistency

9. Solutions to main areas of inconsistency
National Data Standards – changes to better fit CLC practice types, eg ongoing legal support – comments provided Data Standards Working Group Jan 2019
CLC Data Entry Guide – sits alongside (and cross-references) CLASS Online Guide – uses National Data Standards as starting point but more CLC-specific detail and case studies – available March 2019, with other resources such as adaptable flowcharts being added April-June 2019
CLASS Training aimed at lawyers and caseworkers – coming to you soon, includes data standards training – March-June 2019
CLASS changes – small changes to improve consistency (TBA but could be June 2019) vs bigger improvements –TBA
Solutions to main areas of inconsistency

10. 1. Ongoing legal support that is not representation
Problem:
National Data Standards says if not acting for the client then not a Representation Service = need to record multiple Legal Advices / Tasks
In CLASS - hard to chronologically see what is happening with client as no easy way to group or view services as one “matter”
In practice CLC has a paper file containing filenotes and advice sheets
Inconsistencies this generates:
Some CLCs recording as per Data Standards Manual - a lot of extra data entry
Some CLCs create 1-2 Legal Tasks with multiple actions/activities
Some CLCs opening Other Rep Service
1. Ongoing legal support that is not representation

11. 1. Ongoing legal support cont’d
Solution 1:
Negotiate with National Data Standards Working Group to change title and definition of Other Representation Service so it becomes Other Ongoing Legal Support or Representation Services
Create field in CLASS for Other Representation Service with two options: “Acting for client” or “Ongoing legal support to client / not acting for client”
ANY IDEAS WHAT THE SECOND CATEGORY WOULD BE ?
Solution 2:
Create new service type “Ongoing legal support service”
YOUR IDEAS?
1. Ongoing legal support cont’d

12. 2. Discrete services – counting rules
Problem:
Manual ”counting rules” vague
CLC concerns about being assessed / valued based on number of services - want to show complexity or extent of work by recording more of that service (eg 3 advices for 3 different problem types because took 1.5 hours)
In CLASS, hard to group together services of same matter type
Inconsistencies created:
Some CLCs Legal Advice with 3 problem types = 3 separate advices
Referral with 3 destinations = 3 referrals
When does one Legal Task begin and end
2. Discrete services – counting rules

13. 2. Counting rules cont’d YOUR IDEAS? Solution:
Data Standards: NACLC submission to Data Standards Working Group that all discrete services be limited to one date only, with exception for some Legal Tasks, in which it is suggested that date of service is date the task finalised
CLC Data Entry Guide and training will clarify that a service is the process (ie process of providing a referral, Process of providing advice) and it is irrelevant how many different legal subject matters or referral destinations are covered
CLASS changes: see if we can include field to record time spent on Legal Advices, and other services, eg Facilitated Referral
YOUR IDEAS?
2. Counting rules cont’d

14. 3. Other Representation vs Court/Tribunal
Problems:
When a CLC is acting for a client in general casework, what to do when court/tribunal action starts?
Is a particular legal process a court/tribunal process, or not?
Inconsistencies created:
Some CLCs will be recording only one service – if they change their existing service from Other to Court/Tribunal – while others will be recording two services
Some CLCs are recording a particular government decision making process as Court/Tribunal, while others are recording it as Other
3. Other Representation vs Court/Tribunal

15. 3. Other Rep vs Court/Tribunal cont’d …
Solutions
CLC Data Consistency Guide = when a client’s matter shifts to court/tribunal, should close Other Representation Service and open a new Court/Tribunal Service
“Ready Reckoner” for main legal subject matters, giving example of the sorts of matters that are Other Rep, those that are Court/Tribunal
One problem: NSW CLCs recording Victims Support matters as Court/Tribunal Representation, which is out of step with other departmental decisions eg NT (victims support), Immigration (Facilitated Judicial Review Referral) and Centrelink (ARO Internal Review and Status Resolution Support Service)
YOUR IDEAS?
3. Other Rep vs Court/Tribunal cont’d …
Its ompliance with good legal practice management, where a CLC needs to make a decision as to whether to continue acting for the client now it has moved to court/tribunal

16. What are other areas of inconsistency or confusion
Duty Advocacy – tenancy – where the advocate is more like a “friend of the court”
Shopping bag client – can you do a Legal Task before you even provide Advice?
Reasons for Referrals - CLCs are not using these – NACLC want to encourage better use of this
Recording Community Projects – remember you have to set up a Community Project first, and then create services (eg CLE Activity or CLE Resource) – if you have no services your count will be zero
What are other areas of inconsistency or confusion

17. CLASS team are conducting training across NSW to individual CLCs during March
This training will talk through the main areas of confusion and will encourage people to contact CLASS Helpdesk or me for further discussion
A CLC Data Entry Guide is almost complete, and will be available online at same place that CLASS Online is available
Some additional resources including “When you do more than advice” and a flowchart allowing new workers to identify how to record interactions will be available for you to use / adapt
What’s next?

18. Contact NACLC for advice or feedback
General CLASS questions, including ”how should I record this service”, call Helpdesk on or
For data standards or consistency discussion, or
To request CLASS training,
Contact NACLC for advice or feedback