Independent advocacy in adult support and protection work

Abstract

Structured abstractPurpose: This paper considers independent advocates' perspectives on their roles in Scottish Adult Support and Protection (ASP) work, and the facilitators and barriers impacting on these roles in practice.Design/methodology/approach: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with twenty managers and staff from six independent advocacy agencies operating across nine local authority areas.Findings : Participants described key roles in supporting individuals to understand their rights and to negotiate ASP processes. They conceptualised their independence to be the key distinguishing feature of their role.Participants noted lower than expected rates of referral of ASP concerns to advocacy and variable experiences of communication with the statutory services. Particular emphasis was placed on the late stage at which many referrals are received. Awareness, understanding and acceptance of advocacy amongst the statutory services was felt to vary at both practice and strategic levels. Research limitations/implications:The sample is not a representative one. However, some commonalities are worthy of note: particularly the participants' commitment to ASP work and the perceived impact of statutory agencies on their involvement in it. The issue of late referrals merits some consideration at a national level. Issues of awareness and understanding amongst the statutory services, and their links with referral rates, are for further local-level exploration. The independent advocacy community might wish to discuss further the impacts on them of incorporation into statutory frameworks.Originality/value: Advocacy perspectives have been little drawn on in pre-existing ASP research.

A peer approach to the evaluation of adult support and protection processes in North Ayrshire

“…Whilst advocacy may be provided to a proportion of service users who attend case conference, our findings suggest it is not offered/suggested in a standardised way to everyone involved in ASP processes. These findings chime with those of Sherwood-Johnson (2016) and their investigation of independent advocacy which suggests that the low use of advocacy could be explained by the lack of knowledge of the services, and incorporating advocacy services within statutory frameworks could be considered to improve the use of advocacy services. Although the Act suggests that advocacy support is only required to be considered by the social worker, and offered where an individual has a diagnosed mental health condition, it is perhaps something which requires further consideration.…”

Participatory rights of older adults at risk in adult protection case conferences

“…However, from the author’s experience of the embryonic stages of the ASP Act, it was not uncommon for the person to be absent from their APCCs. The UK studies both pre and post MSP indicate similar exclusionary practices (Fyson and Kitson, 2012; Jeary, 2004; Montgomery et al , 2017; Redley et al , 2015; Sherwood-Johnson, 2016). Certain groups including older people with dementia were found to be regularly excluded (Hopkinson et al , 2015; Wallcraft, 2012).…”

“…This paper uses the findings of MSP studies in England (Butler and Manthorpe, 2016; Cooper et al , 2018; Hopkinson et al , 2015) to highlight some of the issues identified within the case scenarios. Similarly, the discussion about the benefits of advocacy draws on research by Lonbay and Brandon (2017) and Sherwood-Johnson (2016).…”

“…People need time to understand the concerns and their options. Lack of flexibility and unnecessary adherence to timescales when the situation is not urgent can undermine person centred practice (Dixon et al , 2021; Sherwood-Johnson, 2016).…”

“…Supported by independent advocacy she was empowered to have her choices respected, despite some of the professionals’ misgivings about the risks. Several studies have highlighted the role of advocacy in facilitating the person’s voice at decision-making stages (Lonbay and Brandon, 2017; Sherwood-Johnson, 2016). Practice experience of advocacy can truly enable the transition from traditional paternalistic practice of “doing for” or “doing to”, progressing to a more inclusive and empowering approach of “doing with” (Slay and Stephens, 2013).…”