Social security advocacy service standards

In general CAPS Independent Advocacy and the people who use our mental health independent advocacy services broadly agree with the definition.
However, the definition refers to ‘advocacy’ and ‘advocacy workers’ rather than ‘independent advocacy’ and ‘independent advocacy workers’. Given that ‘independence’ is one of the underlying principles of the draft standards, it would be beneficial if this were embedded in the definition and description of services throughout the standards. We note that the term ‘independent advocacy’ is used in the Social Security Scotland Charter and in places in the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018. We would welcome consistent use of this term, rather than ‘advocacy’ being used instead of or interchangeably with ‘independent advocacy’. This is not just about semantics - the concept of independence is crucial to people who use our services and is what sets up apart from all other services they may come into contact with. It helps with the person feeling we have no agenda or interest of our own and can be totally on their side, whatever their point of view may be.

We would note concerns with access to independent advocacy being dependent on people self-defining as having a disability. Our work with people with mental health issues means we know that many of them would not think of themselves as disabled. This can be the same for people with learning disabilities or sensory impairments, amongst others. This could present a significant barrier to engagement with independent advocacy, effectively preventing people from accessing the support they need and the benefits to which they are entitled. In order to support the Scottish Government’s clear goal of maximising take-up and ensuring that the Scottish Social Security system contributes effectively to reducing poverty in Scotland, as explicitly stated in Social Security Scotland’s Charter, we would welcome some expansion of the term disability.

Perhaps the opening paragraph of the definition section of the draft standards, could read: “You are entitled to the support of an independent advocacy worker if you have a disability or a condition which means you need help accessing the Scottish social security system”.

CAPS welcomes the explicit statement in the definition that advocacy workers will not provide advice, which echoes and amplifies the assertion in the document’s introduction that “advocacy is not the provision of advice” (p6). It is a fundamental tenet of independent advocacy that people accessing it are “protected from undue pressure, advice or others’ agendas” (SIAA Principles, 2019). Furthermore, we welcome the recognition that independent advocacy and advice are mutually supportive, but distinct, avenues of assistance. Independent advocacy and advice are not interchangeable - they fulfil different functions and provide different levels of support.

We also welcome the statement in the draft standards that, “Your advocacy worker will help you express your views and wishes and represent your own interests”. Independent advocates do not have the legal duty that many other professionals have to make decisions in the best interests of an individual. Indeed, it is a fundamental principle of independent advocacy that it will support people “to explore, understand and express something that is not in their own best interests but is nonetheless what they want” (SIAA Principles, 2019). To do this effectively, however, independent advocates need to work in organisations that are structurally, financially and psychologically separate from other organisations and services, in order that they can be as free as possible from conflicts of interest. Consequently, while we welcome the stated intention that advocacy workers will help people to represent their own interests rather than their best interests, we do not believe that the draft standards will create advocacy services that are sufficiently independent to deliver this in practice.

As an independent advocacy organisation, CAPS very strongly supports the principle of independence. However, as it stands the definition of independence contained in the draft standards does not properly define what "Independent" Advocacy is.

Independence is at the heart of the work CAPS does, and of all the many independent advocacy organisations across Scotland. This is reflected not only in the name, ‘independent advocacy’, but also in the day-to-day delivery of services that put the individual at the heart of the process, always representing their views and preferences, free from conflicts of interest.
We are a member organisation of the Scottish Independent Advocacy Alliance as so follow their Code of Practice which has independence at its very core. However, CAPS has been an Independent service user led organisation since it's inception in 1991, 28 years ago.

So we strongly disagree with the definition of ‘independence’ contained within the draft standards which proposes that, “advocacy services are independent if they are provided by a person other than the Scottish Ministers” (p6).

According to this definition, independent advocacy could be provided by organisations that deliver any number of other services, including employment, advice and healthcare. We believe that the delivery of other services increases the likelihood of conflicts of interest thus compromising an advocate’s ability to act independently. We know this is an important distinction for the people who use our Independent advocacy services. If they felt that the provision of advocacy was related to or attached in any way to another system or service they also use – and perhaps want support from an advocacy worker in challenging or complaining about – this would completely undermine our ability to build trust with them.

There is a nationally understood and accepted definition of what Independent Advocacy is, as contained within SIAA’s ‘Principles, Standards and Code of Practice’ document. This is a simple definition which cannot be misunderstood. An independent advocacy organisation is one that, “only provides independent advocacy. All the activities it undertakes are about providing, promoting, supporting and defending independent advocacy. Its independence means that it does not provide any other services and so it is structurally, financially and psychologically separate from other organisations and interests”.

The draft standards here also conflict with definitions of independent advocacy used elsewhere by the Scottish Government. For instance, the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 clearly states that advocacy services can only be considered independent if the person providing them is not also, for example, delivering medical treatment to the person receiving advocacy and is not a member of the local authority or health board in the area in which they live. While this definition is not as stringent as the SIAA definition of independence, it goes significantly further than that included in the draft Social Security Advocacy Standards.
Why should people accessing advocacy through different legal routes – i.e. via legislation relating to social security or via legislation relating to mental disorders – expect to receive a service that satisfies different levels of independence?

Our organisation would like to see a definition of independence that will ensure meaningful independence, rather than independence in name only. This requires a far clearer and transparent definition of what makes a person or organisation independent than the current definition of, ‘a person other than the Scottish Ministers’.

CAPS is strongly supportive of the principle of being person-centred. This is another key principle which has underpinned our Independent Advocacy work for the past 28 years. However, if the definition of advocacy and the principle of independence remain unaltered in these draft standards, then we do not believe that the resulting service will necessarily be able to provide truly person-centred services.

CAPS would not disagree with the wording in the section or the sentiments behind them. However, we do not believe that the person-centred standards are achievable in a context in which advocacy lacks true independence from other service provision. This is because advocacy workers will face conflicts of interest that might compromise their ability to put the people they are supporting at the heart of the process.
For example if the advocacy is provided by the same organisation that provides care and support to that person then how does being "directed by the person's needs, views and wishes" compete against the organisation's duty of care to do what they think is best for the person?
The same dilemma would occur with an advice or information service, who has the risk of a professional indemnity claim if it assists the person to do or say something which might adversely affect their financial situation. The advocacy worker can ONLY be free to assist a person to express their views and wishes if the worker is not bound by its employer's other interests and duties. A person may not want something about them to be known or discussed in a benefit assessment, and that is their right to withhold information if they are aware of the consequences and wish to make this choice.
In addition, the organisation providing advocacy must be able to operate in a way which is structurally, financially and psychologically separate from other organisations and interests.

CAPS would argue that having multiple sets of standards for independent advocacy – the SIAA standards, the Social Security standards and the Children's Hearing standards – runs counter to a person-centred approach. People have complicated lives with overlapping issues that do not follow neat policy boundaries. It is very likely that someone who requires an independent advocate to support them with a social security claim will also require independent advocacy to support them in relation to a housing or medical issue. This could result in the person receiving independent advocacy from two separate organisations working to two separate sets of standards - this is confusing and lacks clarity for the individual. It does not place them at the heart of the process or reflect the realities of many people’s lives.

CAPS strongly agrees with the principle of accessibility in relation to independent advocacy. Indeed, it is one of the original key principles within the SIAA Code of Practice document which we adhere to as a member of SIAA.

CAPS agrees with the content of most of the draft standards. Meeting people at a place which suits them is a benchmark we adhere to. This includes meeting people in their own homes or travelling to a local community venue. This does incur travel costs especially in rural areas but this is a necessary expense to make sure people who have no access to their own transport, and often little public transport to use, even if their disability allowed this, are able to take up the advocacy assistance.
Communicating through the methods and forms which people prefer is also necessary however access to translation services can be scarce and may incur significant additional costs which would not be able to be borne by the advocacy service. Currently if the issue is related to health then the NHS would provide an interpreter.
This could become a real problem if there is an expectation that the advocacy organisation with fund unlimited requests for translation and interpretation services.
Does the Scottish Government not have a responsibility to be accessible also and therefore anyone accessing the welfare benefits it administers would be assisted to communicate with the assessor?

The last four standards in this section do not seem to be about accessibility. Confidentiality, reporting risk of harm and working to an organisation's policies and procedures are about the quality of the service and would sit better under Quality Assurance.

Clear and transparent access to information about how to make a complaint about the advocacy service or how to request access to all information held on file about you, both fit within the principle of Accessibility rather than Quality Assurance.

CAPS strongly supports the principle of independent advocacy workers being effective and knowledgeable practitioners who have specific and demonstrable skills and experience.

CAPS follows the SIAA’s Code of Practice which says that Independent Advocacy organisations should:

• Provide regular peer support opportunities for staff, volunteers, advocates and activists to discuss good practice, areas for improvement and advocacy dilemmas.
• Provide continuous development and learning opportunities, guidance and information to all staff, volunteers, activists and Board and Trustees on the Principles, Standards and Code of Best Practice for Independent Advocacy.
• Ensure that everyone in the organisation has training or preparation on equal opportunities, equalities duties, respect and dignity, discrimination and human rights.

However, while we support the principle of independent advocacy workers being trained, we have concerns with some of the draft standards.
"Advocacy workers will have detailed knowledge of the Scottish social security system and advocacy" - of course they need detailed knowledge of Independent Advocacy but we would argue that advocacy workers do not need to be experts on the social security system. They need to have a working knowledge of the system but they are not advising the person about what to apply for or how to do that. Too much knowledge can lead to the risk of the advocacy worker telling someone what they should do, or what they are entitled to, rather than leaving the provision of advice to expert advice organisations.
‘Advocacy workers will be able to meet your needs including any communication needs’ is actually a standard that should be delivered at a service rather than individual level. The ability to do this is related to comments within the Accessibility principle about availability of translation and interpretation and the costs thereof.

CAPS is in agreement with all of the draft standards contained in this section. They could be made more stringent but the other standards are open to interpretation also .

Regarding written records, we have a principle of not recording personal details about a person's situation that we do not need to know. We would record action taken but not necessarily every detail especially in relation to medical conditions. We protect people's personal information.
There is no mention within the quality assurance principle about data protection and in particular not sharing any information about the person you're providing advocacy for to other organisations and/or services without their consent.