Two complaints

A few things came together recently to inspire this post...

- my last piece of advocacy work at the end of last year for someone
- the reply which began by refuting some comments I'd made
- the new coordinators comment that she wished it was possible to write letters like the one I'd written (it was my last piece of work after all)
- and another advocate's very true comment... (and I paraphrase:)

'Often when an advocate comes in to support somone with a complaint they end up going to meetings that aren't manged very well. Then the advocate often feels aggrieved that procedures haven't been followed and you immediately get two complaints. The problem is we can't complain about what we see, we can only support our partner/client who often doesn't pick out the subtleties of bad practice...'

Two complaints: one from the partner, one from the advocate. Where does the advocate's complaint go? Isn't this a potentially useful complaint (or bit of feedback) from a 'fellow professional'? Sadly if we do try to express it we get attacked, at least here in Wakefield and I'm sure in many other areas too. Despite all the rhetoric of senior managers welcoming complaints, there's still a long way to go.

Advocates not against mental health reform

I heard that a government minister (probably some months ago now) made a barbed comment at a meeting of advocates that suggested the government thought the advocacy movement was somehow responsible for scuppering the Mental Health Bill.

This seems amazing and unlikely to me. This is mainly because I don't think we have this sort of power. Also because advocates were finally due to get some recognition and support from the bill.

Of course some of us did join in the many voices that said the proposals for locking more people up were unrealistic and unproductive (or whatever was said).

The idea that the advocacy movement was in any way responsible for the bill's failure must be pure paranoia on the governments part however. Now I'm sure this little blog won't have any influence, but if there's any ministers or special advisors or senior civil servants reading this (and if not, why not?) then DON'T BLAME US please...

Threats to advocacy funding

I was at a meeting last week when the question of funding came up. We went round the table and a variety of worrying stories were told. I haven't been very well since then and my memory may not be fully accurate, but here is a brief précis:

• There were several stories of local projects losing out to bigger players during the recent IMCA tendering;
• There was a rumour that a solicitor's firm had won one of the IMCA tenders;
• One local advocacy scheme was simply told that they would have to start delivering IMCA locally but there would be no extra money available and the new IMCA cases would have to be prioritised over existing clients;
• Three local authorities seem to have recently done an audit of local advocacy provision. Not very much was known about this but at least two of them have since been ringing around wondering what to do with the results... Let's hope they don't do anything drastic;

In Wakefield we've also had a couple of cases recently of 'advocacy' jobs being advertised that aren't advocacy. It seems people are picking up on the buzz surrounding advocacy but not bothering to find out what it really is, so for example there is an advertisement for an advocacy worker to support child victims of domestic violence, but the job description is all about assessment and knowledge of legislation and working to tight deadlines, and to be honest I don't have much faith in this particular part of the Council.

I don't know if this is also being replicated around the country, but I fear it will lead to a further dilution of advocacy and the understanding of advocacy.

Just at the moment when there is a good feeling that advocacy is rising up in people's consciousness, do we already need to beware of trouble ahead?