So, after tweeting about Citizens Advice and the DWP deal last night, I have had a lot of responses. Some of which suggested my comments were too broad, too hasty and premature. That is fair. They were broad and hasty. And we don't know the details of the deal (if we ever will).
So, time for hopefully better phrased, better directed, and specific concerns. Some of which can hopefully be avoided, some of which can be mitigated, and some of which can't be dealt with and people need to face that. Here is the announcement. gov.uk/government/new…
1. Perception. 'Citizens Advice now work for DWP' - this may be technically inaccurate, it may be unfair, but it will certainly be a perception. The technical details won't matter. Anyone relying on the 'brand' goodwill and trust to overcome or avoid this is foolish.
(Here's an example. Shelter have a service provision agreement with Southwark on homeless prevention work. This resulted in a Southwark tenants rights group doing this. )
2. Perception. 'Citizens Advice are now part of the UC system'. Quite possibly this will be inaccurate (and unfair). That won't stop it.
3. The weight of money. £39 million (for an unspecified period. Per year?) is a lot for Citizens Advice. Their current annual income is a bit under £100 million. Keeping that contract and that income will, of course, be a priority. And that weighs on things, subtly or less so.
It is *there*. It will always be present in the background of policy decisions and drafting public statements, for example. The weight of money may be resisted, but it is there, always there. And imagine being confronted with a decision between doing what is independent and right
or keeping the money and the advice jobs and staff and etc. That decision may never come, of course. But lesser ones, with consequences, will. Will critical views and reports on UC be tempered? A little? A lot? Even not deliberately? Note the phrasing from CA CEO here. 
4. Contracts - this will surely be a contract for service provision with the DWP. I can't imagine it possibly being an 'advice grant'. Terms will be all important. The DWP has a history of putting clauses into contracts with third sector providers such terms as:
'You will not criticise the DWP or say bad things about Esther McVey'. Seriously... disabilitynewsservice.com/charities-deli… Even the Legal Aid Agency tried to include a 'don't be rude about the LAA' clause in the 2017 crime contract round. legalaidhandbook.com/2016/10/18/laa… (Removed after threat of JR)
But let us assume that CA avoids such a clause. What other clauses? How about data from the performance of the contracted advice can only be disclosed to the DWP? There goes a chunk of CA ability to research and publish. There are many, many other possible contract issues.
5. Implication and independence. Assuming that CA avoids contractual pitfalls, this deal to provide Universal Support to those struggling with claiming and managing Universal Credit makes it *very* hard for CA to publicly criticise the implementation of UC for those people.
After all, it would now be CA's paid job to assist such people and make UC work for them (or them fit for UC, I guess). CA will be implicated in any (ongoing) failure of UC system for the more vulnerable and will not be able to criticise it without the risk of being blamed.
6. Conflicts. Well some are already set out above. The pressures and temptations that come with preserving an income stream and contract. But, if as it appears, delivery will be through local CABs, there will inevitably be a broader risk of conflict between contract delivery and
client's interests. These need to be considered, and addressed. No point in pretending they won't exist. And they may affect CAB ability to straightforwardly bring appeals and challenges on behalf of clients who were assisted under the Universal Support scheme.
Certainly, I would expect DWP lawyers to look at such points on appeals in any event.
7. Scale. Will the scale of provision of Universal Support assistance (the whole thing from April 2019) affect the rest of CABx advice provision? Where there is resource competition, which takes priority, contractual delivery or the rest?
8. Lastly, for various CABx people who have replied to me, nobody who isn't actually a part of Citizens Advice or a CA Bureau knows or cares about the difference between national CA and local CABx and their organisational and power relations.
So, whatever CA does that affects reputation will equally affect CABx.
So, that is an initial list. Some may be avoided, some addressed, some can't be. But they exist.
So, that is an initial list. Some may be avoided, some addressed, some can't be. But they exist.
Here are other people, this time from the advice sector, being very concerned. For many of the same reasons. rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthr…
