Using Advocacy in Social Work Practice

A Guide for Students and Professionals

Peter Scourfield

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• eBook ISBN: 9781000350067
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Political Advocacy
• Index: Social Sciences

This book explains different types of advocacy and the various ways in which advocacy is used in social work, making links with core social work concepts such as empowerment, safeguarding and rights. Tracing how the use of advocacy is mandated in professional social work guidance and codes of practice as well as in legislation such as the Care Act 2014 and the Mental Capacity Act 2005, this book:

• Explores definitions of advocacy, discusses what it can achieve and explains the different uses of advocacy in social work.

• Covers the necessary knowledge, skills and values that social workers need in order to advocate effectively in their own practice.

• Discusses critically what independent advocacy is and explains why it has become an integral part of contemporary social work. Examples are provided of where independent advocacy plays an important role in different areas of social work.

• Explains what social workers need to know about working effectively with different types of advocates.

• Encourages critical reflection on the relationship between social work and independent advocacy and flags debates and issues relating to the use of advocacy in social work.

Aimed at social work students and social work professionals, this book provides an excellent introduction into a topic which is highly relevant to social work, using case-studies and activities to aid understanding.

1
What is advocacy?

By the end of this chapter you should have an understanding of:

• Different ideas about and definitions of what advocacy is, what it involves and what advocates do.
• The circumstances and situations in which people might need or want advocacy.
• The links between advocacy, power, powerlessness and empowerment.
• Different types or forms of advocacy currently practised.

Advocacy: an evolving concept with a long history

This book is about advocacy and is primarily about the uses of advocacy in social work. However, it is important to understand that different forms of advocacy long predate the arrival of social work as we know it. In countries around the world people have advocated on many issues in many ways for centuries using different methods. Nearly a century ago, a legal historian wrote:

Advocacy is one of the most ancient and honorable of all callings. From time immemorial the principle that a person has the right to select another to plead his cause has been recognized. Many of the great orators of Greece and Rome, though in a manner differing from that of modern times, performed the functions of advocates, and many of their most famous orations were composed for that purpose.

(Timberlake, 1922: 25)

The actual words ‘advocacy’ and ‘advocate’ have their origins in Roman law. In Latin ‘ad’ means ‘to’ and ‘vocare’ means ‘to call’. In Roman times ‘advocatus’ was the name given to the person ‘called to’ a court to aid or plead the cause of another. The term has continued to be associated with the law and courts ever since. In the Middle Ages, as legal systems developed, variations on the word ‘advocatus’ were used for anyone called upon to defend another in a court of law. This was usually, but not always, a trained lawyer. In fact, in many European languages today, the word for a lawyer – ‘avocat’ in French and ‘advocaat’ in Dutch, for example – derive from precisely this meaning. The term ‘devil’s advocate’ (‘advocatus diaboli’ in Latin) dates from practices in the Roman Catholic Church in mediaeval times. When it was proposed that someone be made a saint (canonisation), the Catholic Church appointed an advocatus diaboli whose role it was to deliberately expose any faults in the supporting evidence (including exposing character flaws) in the candidate being put forward. An ‘advocatus dei’ (advocate of God) was also appointed to refute the objections raised by the advocatus diaboli against the canonisation. We still use the term ‘devil’s advocate’ today to describe a person who deliberately takes up a contrary position from what most people believe in order to force a more thorough consideration of the other side of the argument. In its present day sense, the role of devil’s advocacy could be said to improve the quality of decision-making by, amongst other things, guarding against ‘groupthink’. This is something to bear in mind when thinking about the roles advocates can play in decision-making in social work contexts.

In latter centuries, the various struggles for civil, political and social and human rights around the world have seen different forms of advocacy play an important role in campaigning not just for legal rights but for political and social change more widely. For example, the website devoted to Harriet Tubman, the 19th-century Black American campaigner, refers to Tubman and her counterparts ‘as strong advocates and leaders of the women’s rights movement’ (harriet-tubman.org). Whereas the United for Human Rights website describes Martin Luther King Junior as ‘one of the twentieth century’s best-known advocates for non-violent social change’ (humanrights.com). Stonewall, the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights charity describes an important part of its purpose as working to transform institutions as ‘advocates and agents of positive change’ (stonewall.org.uk). When looked at from this perspective advocacy is less an activity performed by individuals on behalf of other individuals and more the collective actions of groups of people coming together to achieve common goals. These goals might be about ensuring that people who are relatively powerless, oppressed or discriminated against have their voices heard and achieve equal rights. Political advocacy is therefore about fighting for social change.

Over time, ideas about what advocacy is for and what advocates can achieve have continued to evolve and take on shades of meaning that extend well beyond those originally conceived. This is evident in everyday discourse. For example, if I said, ‘my dentist advocates the use of an electric toothbrush for better dental hygiene’ or ‘my doctor strongly advocates I keep to a low-cholesterol diet’, it would be perfectly well understood that they are giving their support or endorsement to a certain type of action. In fact, the meaning of ‘advocate’ in these statements is almost synonymous with ‘advise’. For some in the advocacy movement that ‘advocate’ and ‘advise’ can have this shared meaning is both confusing and unfortunate because they do not see the function of advocacy as offering advice at all but as enabling someone’s voice to be heard. However, the fact is that, in everyday usage, all of us have probably used advocate in this sense ourselves. Some of us might even positively want or expect advice from someone who is acting as our advocate, as we might if we consulted a lawyer or doctor.

Therefore, from its early origins in legal and court-related practice, the concept of advocacy has evolved and taken on additional, sometimes quite different, meanings over time. In addition to notions of speaking up for others and defending rights, it has variously become associated with putting forward and challenging different points of view, political activism and social campaigning. Also, as indicated above, it is also used to mean advising or suggesting a specific course of action. It therefore needs to be accepted that the ways in which people understand and talk about advocacy can be quite elastic depending on the context. Much as it would simplify matters – particularly when writing a book on advocacy – we cannot be too puritanical about definitions. It would be handy to have a ‘pure’ and unequivocal definition of advocacy. However, in reality, it is more complicated.

In a book with the aim of explaining the uses of advocacy in social work, admittedly it potentially muddies the waters somewhat to say that there is no clear, unambiguous, universally agreed definition available. However, the reason for doing so is to caution that we need to tread carefully in how we think about and use the term. Advocacy is an elusive and contested concept. What advocacy means can take on different meanings in different contexts. Just because we might see advocacy and the role of the advocate defined in professional guidance and codes of practice (as we shall later), there is no guarantee that others will necessarily share those definitions or follow the ‘rules’ for that matter. Others might well have quite different expectations of advocacy from us. Their ideas about what advocates should do, for example, provide advice or offer support of other kinds, might differ from ours. They are not necessarily wrong.

Advocacy is a democratic activity and, as such, is one where people continue to disagree about what it is and how it should be practised. No single profession or any other group in society possesses the exclusive rights to advocate. Almost anyone can be an advocate either for themselves or for others. It is an open field but, as a consequence, is also a potentially confusing and frustrating field to get to grips with and operate in. Understanding this at the start will help with using advocacy in social work practice more effectively for those who need it.

Working definitions

With the point made that advocacy is an evolving and contested concept, we nevertheless need to have a working definition in order to move on. A classic dictionary definition of advocacy states that it is:

The function of an advocate, the work of advocating, pleading for or supporting.

(OED, 1989: 194)

Given what has already been discussed about advocacy’s early origins and its subsequent evolution, this definition is a starting point but does not really do justice to the ways that advocacy has developed. It omits, amongst other things, the political dimension, for example, the activities of claiming equal rights, empowering those facing discrimination and oppression and campaigning for social change.

Activity 1.1

From what you have read so far and drawing on your own ideas about advocacy, how would you define it in no more than two sentences? Compare your definition with someone else’s if possible.

Completing the activity might have demonstrated just what a tricky concept advocacy is to pin down – at least, neatly, in a sentence or two. You need not worry though. This has generally been found to be the case in defining advocacy – especially in the context of health and social care generally (see, e.g. Bateman, 2000; Wilks, 2012; Dalrymple and Boylan, 2013). With this in mind there is no point in bombarding the reader with different definitions if no precise form of words can fully capture all the shades of meaning perfectly. However, the following from Brandon (1995) is offered because it provides a useful lead in to important themes covered in this book:

Advocacy involves a person(s), either a vulnerable individual or group or their agreed representative effectively pressing their case with influential others, about situations which either affect them directly or, and more usually, trying to prevent proposed changes which will leave them worse off. Both the intent and the outcome of such advocacy should increase the individual’s sense of power; help them to feel more confident, to become more assertive and gain increased choices.

(p. 1)

Brandon makes several salient points about advocacy in this definition. Three points particularly worth noting at this stage are, first, that advocacy involves people who are ‘vulnerable’; second, advocacy involves ‘influencing others’ and, third, ‘advocacy should increase the individual’s sense of power’.

Understanding questions of how people become ‘vulnerable’, how to influence others and how to increase someone’s ‘sense of power’ are all critical in understanding the purpose of advocacy generally and in social work specifically. These questions underline the importance of understanding power and power relations. These are key concepts not only in advocacy but also in social work. We need to better understand what factors make people relatively powerless (lacking control over their own lives) and what can make them empowered (more in control).

The circumstances and situations in which people might need or want advocacy

Vulnerability, powerlessness and lack of control

Brandon uses the term ‘vulnerable’ to describe those who need advocacy. To describe an individual or group of people as ‘vulnerable’ usually means that they are or perceived as being at risk of some sort of harm. It implies that they need special care, support or protection. However, we need to be a little wary when we hear people being described as ‘vulnerable’. First, it can be problematic if by labelling someone as ‘vulnerable’ it becomes their ‘master status’ (Hughes, 1945). That is to say that their vulnerability defines them and becomes the most important thing about them. This can lead us to think that their vulnerability is located within them (part of their makeup), rather than located in their situation at a particular time or their life circumstances generally. If vulnerability is located in the person, then it risks constructing the person as passive, lacking agency and powerless to affect their own lives. It can also lead to the adoption of a certain fatalistic attitude where living with a suboptimal situation is regarded as inevitable, even normal – ‘it comes with being vulnerable’. ‘Vulnerable’ people can end up constructed as less than full citizens.

That is not to say that there are not people who have something about them, for example, a severe and profound mental disability, which places them at risk of harm in situations that most other people would not be. However, it is more useful to think of vulnerability as being created from a combination of factors. Some might be related to the person such as their age (e.g. being very young) or having some form of disability or illness. However, more importantly, the factors that make people vulnerable are usually related to the circumstances or situation in which they find themselves. Vulnerability, looked at this way, means that rather than the individual having to adapt to the situation or simply accept their lot, change can be sought in the person’s circumstances, physical or social environment that will make them less vulnerable – or preferably not vulnerable at all.

A second reason why describing someone simply as ‘vulnerable’ is problematic is that the person might not feel vulnerable themselves. For example, to a sighted person a blind man walking through a busy town centre might appear to be very vulnerable. However, for the man himself it might well be regarded as an everyday occurrence that he is well experienced in negotiating. If we grabbed hold of his arm and started to guide him along, there is every chance that he would be made to feel less in control by this intervention than if he was left to his own devices. Similarly, an old, frail woman living alone in a run-down house with rickety bannisters on the stairs and holes in the carpet might appear at great risk of harm and therefore very vulnerable. However, it could well be that she has lived in the house for many years, knows her environment extremely well, has adapted to it and feels perfectly safe in familiar surroundings. Telling her she must move to sheltered accommodation for her own good might well make her feel less in control and more anxious than if she was left to her own devices. Both of these examples illustrate that there is an important subjective dimension to whether someone feels vulnerable or not. Vulnerability cannot simply be read off from any specific physical or mental characteristics that someone might have.

The two examples given above illustrate how interventions (albeit well-intentioned) based on preconceptions of vulnerability, can, ironically, cause the people involved to feel less in control of their lives (less empowered) than they were before. Ideas about what determines someone as ‘vulnerable’ are not always as straightforward as we might imagine. We therefore need to be careful to clarify what we mean when we say that advocacy is for ‘vulnerable’ people for these reasons. Rather than risk the associations and stereotyping that come with the label ‘vulnerable’, it can be more appropriate, in many instances, to think in terms of someone not having control over decisions and other factors that affect their lives at certain times. This helps shift the focus away from overconcentrating on the vulnerabilities of the individual (or group) and to include consideration of other factors in that person’s circumstances that are either increasing or decreasing their powerlessness in any given situation.

Gaining control and creating a level playing field

The world is not made up of two separate groups – ‘vulnerable people’ and the rest of us. Any of us can be vulnerable at different times and for different reasons. It is therefore more appropriate to think in terms of people needing or wanting advocacy because they do not have sufficient control over circumstances that affect them at a particular time. Our control over situations is affected by the various resources we have at our disposal. These include the know...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• 1 What is advocacy?
• 2 Advocacy in the context of social work
• 3 Independent advocacy
• 4 Advocacy in social work: values, ethics and skills
• 5 Advocacy and social work: some final thoughts
• References
• Index