…the recognition that some people are unable to have their
voice heard in situations where there is a power imbalance and
that advocacy can either represent a person’s voice or facilitate
the hearing of that person’s voice.
The above definition sums up the ethos of the outreach service where I am based on placement and, as such, advocacy is implicitly embedded into our daily work. We aim to provide an opportunity for young people and their families to express their views and to have a forum to decide how issues should be resolved, whilst offering support and advice that reflects their wishes and emphasizes their strengths.
(Key Role 1 Units 2.3; 2.4; 3.1 / GSCC Code of Practice).
THE ADVOCACY ROLE:
Just as there is little agreement as to a definition of advocacy, so there are various descriptions of ‘types’ of advocacy, including ‘peer’, ‘case’, ‘citizen’, ‘cause’ and ‘group’, along with various sub-divisions within these, such as ‘reactive’ and ‘proactive’, (Dalrymple, 2005). Beckett (2006, cited in Cree and Myers, 2008) states that there are only two types of advocacy within social work and classifies these as either ‘direct’ or ‘indirect’, each with sub-divisions of ‘micro’ and ‘macro’. Maclean and Harrison (2008) also argue for two different types of advocacy, but name these as either ‘self advocacy’ or ‘citizen / professional advocacy’. However, despite this lack of clarity, the underpinning feature of any type of advocacy with young people is ‘appreciating the views and feelings of the young person [which] helps them [to] feel involved and can help everyone make better decisions’ (Barnardos, 2008: online). After consideration of these advocacy ‘types’, I feel that with A. I was using ‘professional case’ advocacy, both in ‘proactive’ (planned outcomes) and ‘reactive’ (adaptation of plan to suit the circumstances) ways and that this was carried out in a ‘direct’ way on a ‘micro’ level.
ADVOCACY - CHANGING THE PLAN OF WORK:
The initial focus of my work, as requested by A.’s social worker, was to be a piece of ‘Life Story’ work and I therefore immediately undertook some training in this (GSCC Code of Practice). Following this training, however, it became apparent that perhaps ‘Life Story’ work was not appropriate for A. at this period in his life. I became uncertain about how ‘Life Story’ work would benefit A. and so asked him how he felt about it. A. shared that he covered some of this whilst in foster care and that he did not want to talk about the time he spent living with dad as it was still fresh in his memory. I had to take this back to A.’s social worker and look at revising this plan of work so as to be more beneficial and more engaging for him. This was a difficult thing to do as I felt that it may appear that I was challenging the social worker’s professionalism. However, on reflection, it seems that to adapt this plan of work was both respectful of A’s ‘wishes and feelings’ (the Children Act 1989) and appeared to be in his ‘best interests’ (UNCRC -Article 3) at this point in his life. The Advocacy Standards (DOH, 2002) stress the importance of listening to children’s wishes and feelings and challenging authority if necessary. Fortunately, the need to challenge was not necessary in this case as A.’s social worker was open to the idea of adapting the original plan of work and was in agreement with the reasons for this. This is therefore an example of reactive case advocacy (Dalrymple, 2005), carried out on a professional level (Brandon, 1995, cited in Adams et al., 2002), whereby it was necessary to respond to a given need and adapt a plan of work.
(Key Role 1 Units 2.4; 3.1; 3.3; Key Role 2 Units 5.4; 6.4; 6.5; Key Role 3 Unit 10.3/ GSCC Code of Practice).
ADVOCACY - FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS:
I have been working with A. on a 1:1 basis for a number of months, on a weekly or twice
weekly basis. This has led me to develop a good relationship with him to the extent that he is happy to share his anxieties, worries and fears with me. As it became apparent that A. was experiencing difficulties within his family, but felt unable to voice these, it seemed natural that I would be the person to help him to do this.
(Key Role 2 Unit 5.1; Key Role 3 Unit 10.1).
Research shows that young people place great emphasis both on their relationship with their advocate and the care and respect shown to them throughout the process. Caring about the outcome seems central to the value of the work undertaken and according to Barnes (2007:140):
This ‘caring’ advocacy is not the paternalistic approach
of a professional who ‘knows what’s best for you’ but is
a model based on a strong awareness of ways that young
people are excluded and oppressed.
Although Barnes’study was based on young people in foster and residential placements, it is important to consider that young people can also feel ‘excluded and oppressed’ within their own families, particularly during periods of crisis. A. felt particularly excluded at times within his family and also shared with me that he felt everybody seemed to know what was best for him. His relationship with his sister, who is 17 years old, could be described as being oppressive and I was witness to occasions when A. was not allowed to speak without her showing signs of irritation with him.
Diller’s (1996, cited in Barnes, 2007) ‘ethic of care’ links in closely with systems theory in that it stresses the importance of seeing the young person in relation to their family and their attachments rather than in isolation, so as not to make a given situation worse for them and to avoid repercussions for the young person. In this sense I had to be careful about what I said to A.’s mum and sister as well as how I said it, as I was unsure of the family dynamics and didn’t want to leave A. in a situation whereby he felt more oppressed (or even at risk) due to having spoken out about his feelings. As Adams et al (2002:202) state ‘…practice dilemmas arise more fundamentally because they are inherent…in the diversity of interests of members of families…’. As well as advocate, I was also acting as a negotiator and mediator here (Coulshed and Orme,2006), in the sense that I wanted to find solutions to the problems that A. and his sister were experiencing within their relationship and help them both to move towards these solutions.
(Key Role 2 Unit 5.2; 5.3; 9.2; 9.3; Key Role 3 Unit 10.3 / GCSS Code of Practice).
MOVING TOWARDS SELF ADVOCACY - A CHILD IN NEED REVIEW:
It could be argued that advocacy should be seen on a continuum with the objective of advocacy ultimately being self-advocacy (Braye and Preston Shoot, 1995; Dalrymple, 2003, cited in Pithouse and Parry, 2005). In this sense therefore, empowerment is a crucial component of any work carried out with service users. According to Brandon et al (1998, cited in Koprowska, 2008:94) we need to work with children as well as on behalf of them, to ‘have their voice heard, and to participate in decisions affecting them’.
Initially this teaching of self advocacy centred around how I could encourage A. to begin to speak for himself within his family, without getting angry and without being blamed. In speaking out it was also necessary for A. to regulate and be in control of his own behaviour which in turn would raise his self esteem. This then developed further and as a Child in Meeting had been arranged I asked A. if he would like to attend in order to speak on behalf of himself, emphasizing that I would also be there to help him to do this if needed. A. declined but stated that it was because “it would be boring” rather than because he didn’t feel able to speak out. However, following some encouragement and further explanation about the process, A. has since shared that he will think further about this as this would be within a safe environment, and would not be dominated by professionals on this occasion. As one of the questions on the Child in Need Review pro-forma is: ‘have the views of the child been directly communicated to the meeting?’ I feel that as long as A. has been given the option to attend and has been consulted beforehand regarding his wishes and feelings, then it would be appropriate for me to act as advocate in A.’s absence if he should decide not to attend.
I then asked if there would be anything that A. would like me to say on his behalf and he asked me to share his feelings around having an outreach worker and a social worker in his life. During an angry outburst at the end of one of our sessions (when mum had refused to allow A. to play out) A. shared with me that he wanted a “normal life” and “normal kids don’t have social workers and outreach workers”. Here then was an obvious tension between what is best for A. (his ‘best interests’) and what A actually wants (his ‘wishes and feelings’), the former perhaps being an example of disempowering practice, when the client’s wish is over-ridden in favour of a more paternalistic approach. As the underlying principles of the Child in Need Model are that ‘the child’s needs must come first’, here again was a paradoxical situation which was further enhanced by the fact that I was being asked to speak out against my own service and this is perhaps where the independence of the advocate is of paramount importance (Dalrymple, 2005). However, as engaging with the outreach service is entirely voluntary, I did explain to A. that he did not have to continue working with me and that if he so wished I would ensure that this was stated at the meeting. Since then, however, A. has agreed to re-engage with me and the support offered, on condition that I no longer collect him from school and that this is on a weekly rather than a twice weekly basis. A. apologized to me for saying that he no longer wanted to work with me and actually asked me if I minded. I was in fact extremely pleased that he felt able to talk to me in such an open and honest manner, feeling that perhaps this is evidence of A. moving towards self advocacy.
(Key Role 1 Unit 2.4; Key Role 3 Units 10.3; 11.2; 11.3; 11.4 / GSCC Code of Practice)
CONCLUSION
To summarise, my role as advocate for A. incorporated three different strands, namely that of advocating for a change of plan in the work initially commissioned by A.’s social worker; assisting A. in being heard within his own family unit (and particularly with regards to his relationship with his sister) and helping A. move towards self advocacy, both as a possible participant in a Child in Need review meeting and in the sense that he felt able to express his wishes to me about how he wanted us to work together.
According to Dalrymple (2005:5):
by sharing their knowledges [sic] with the young people
involved advocates are sharing power rather than using
their expertise to create [d]istance [sic]
and that:
to promote a culture of advocacy means that all adults
involved in the lives of young people need an understanding
and commitment to the ideas, beliefs, values and knowledge
which constitute the basis of advocacy (2005:10).
There is evidence that this is beginning to happen, with, for example the Total Respect Training that now takes for professionals within the Children’s Rights Services and the ever growing use of Family Group Conferences as a means of problem resolution within families, along with an increase in the number of advocacy projects. The fact that the social work degree and National Occupational Standards also incorporate units focusing on advocacy is also evidence of the importance placed on the advocacy skills of workers in general, alongside those services dedicated specifically to formal advocacy.
REFERENCES
Adams, R., Dominelli, L., and Payne, M (eds.) (2002) Critical Practice in Social Work. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan
Barnardos. (2009) Advocacy. [Online] [Accessed on 18 March 2009]
Barnes, V (2007). ‘Young People’s Views of Children’s Rights Advocacy Services: A Case for ‘Caring’ Advocacy?’ Child Abuse Review Vol.16, pp140-152.
Bateman, N. (2000) Advocacy Skills for Health and Social Care Professionals. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Braye, S., and Preston-Shoot, M. (1995) Empowering Practice in Social Care. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Children Act 1989 (c.41) London: OPSI
Coulshed, V and Orme, J. (2006) Social Work Practice. 4th ed., Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cree, V., and Myers, S. (2008) Social Work: Making a Difference. Bristol: The Policy Press.
Dalrymple, J. (2005) ‘Constructions of Child and Youth Advocacy: Emerging Issues in Advocacy Practice’. Children and Society Vol. 19, pp3-15.
Department for Education and Skills (2006) Every Child Matters: Change for Children [Online] [Accessed on 4 March 2009]
Department of Health (1998). Quality Protects: Framework for Action and Objectives for Social Services for Children. London: TSO.
Department of Health. (2002) Children’s Advocacy [Online] [Accessed on 18 March 2009]
Human Rights Act 1998 (c.42) London: OPSI
Koprowska, J. (2008) Communication and Interpersonal Skills in Social Work. 2nd ed., Exeter: Learning Matters.
Maclean, S., and Harrison, R. (2008) Social Work Theory; A Straightforward Guide for Practice Assessors and Placement Supervisors. Rugeley: Kirwin Maclean Associates.
OPSI (2006) Childcare Act 2006. [Online] [Accessed on 11 March 2009]
Payne, M. (1997) Modern Social Work Theory: A Critical Introduction. 2nd ed., Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Pithouse, A., and Parry, O. (2005) ‘Children’s Advocacy in Wales: Organisational challenges for those who Commission and Deliver Advocacy for Looked After Children’. Adoption and Fostering Vol. 29, no.4, pp45-56
Sanders, R., & Mace, S. (2006) ‘Agency Policy and The Participation of Children and Young People in the Child Protection Process’. Child Abuse Review, Vol. 15, pp89-109.
Thompson, N. and Thompson, S. (2008) The Social Work Companion. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan
Trevithick, P. (2005) Social Work Skills: A Practice Handbook. 2nd ed., Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Utting, D (ed.) (1998). Children’s Services Now and in the Future. London: National Children’s Bureau Enterprises.
.
.
