Leading advice services are being forced to cut back on face-to-face support and place more emphasis on digital and telephone services, a roundtable discussion of advice charity leaders revealed yesterday.

Held under Chatham House rule, chief executives and senior figures from leading advice-giving charities discussed at the event held by New Philanthropy Capital how they can do more with less in light of statutory funding cuts and an increased demand for their services.

Last year Shelter was forced to close one-third of its face-to-face services, and lost 75 of its staff. Around the table, this retraction of face-to-face services was echoed, with a number of speakers advising of severe waiting lists, cuts to services and a move to digital or telephone services as alternatives.

One organisation said that the waiting list for its face-to-face services currently stood at five weeks, while another advised that it could only answer 60 per cent of its phone calls. Meanwhile there was consensus that demand was increasing heavily.

Innovation being encouraged

But the cuts, some advised, were encouraging modernisation and innovation, with some investigating or offering online counselling services, joining up services with other organisations and rethinking organisational structure.

While most agreed that a layering effect - where services are provided through face-to-face, telephone and digital - is necessary, Emma-Jane Cross, chief executive of Beatbullying (who waived her anonymity) emphasised the difference digital has made to her charity. Cross advised that Beatbullying “wouldn’t have been able to scale and expand without going almost entirely online”. The charity now supports 152,000 young people a year, offering a range of online services including peer mentoring, online conferences and fundraising digitally.

Cross said for her beneficiaries, digital is the preferred choice, and advised she believes digital is “the future”. Further, she asserted that: “If advice charities don’t embrace digital, they will go bankrupt in the next ten years.”

One organisation working with a wider age range, however, said that its experience is that the anonymity provided by online means that there is less follow-up with digital support.

While they were able to reach a greater number of people via online, they said that they found telephone services most effective, using follow-up calls to continue support. Another speaker said there is an assumption that face-to-face is best, but that it is possible to amend the telephone model to reflect what is good in face-to-face.

But for many, the focus of the discussion was less on the how, and more on the when, expressing a need for early intervention. Charities spoke of addressing their brand to re-determine their market, of focusing on education and of addressing needs locally. One organisation mooted collaboration with local activity providers, those most likely to engage with people locally regularly, to disseminate advice and identify need.

Earlier this month, early research into the effects of legal aid cuts on advice services in Liverpool revealed that 91 per cent of charities in this area felt they were providing a lower level of service as a result.