Advocacy Training in London. Exploring Opportunities and Need

Transcription

1 Advocacy Training in London Exploring Opportunities and Need Karen Mellanby February 2002 Advocacy Across London. Lorrimore Square PO Box London SE17 3XR Tel: Fax This organisation is funded by London Borough Grants and the King s Fund

2 Contents 1. Section One Introduction 1. Introduction 2. Report Summary Section Two -Context 1 Advocacy Training 2. Report Background 3. Training Issues Section Three Researching the Issues 1. The Training Questionnaire 2. The Pan London Advocacy Forum Section Four Findings and Analysis 1. Training Budgets 2. Attending Training Courses 3. Courses Requested 4. In-house Training and the Sharing of Skills. Section Five - Conclusion Section Six - Appendices 1. The Questionnaire 2. Courses Requested Thank you to Sue Parlby, CAIT Training Officer, for her comments and suggestions during the analysis of the questionnaires and production of this report. 2

3 Section One Introduction and Summary of Findings 1. Introduction This report is intended as an initial exploration of some of the training issues that impact on London s Independent Advocacy Sector. Whilst the work is not an exhaustive analysis of advocacy training needs, information, gathered by Advocacy Across London (AAL), has been analysed, both quantitatively and qualitatively with the intention of informing debates around what the current training needs are, how they can be best met and by whom? AAL is a support and resource agency for London s Independent Advocacy Sector and has gathered information via a training questionnaire, interviews, its Pan London Forum for advocates and in its day to day work. It is hoped the report will promote and encourage advocates and organisations to become actively involved in the identification of their individual learning needs and to explore ways for the independent advocacy sector to identify or provide opportunities for meeting them. 2. Report Summary This report sets the current context for developments in advocacy training by introducing relevant legislation and initiatives impacting on the sector. It explores the issues relevant to advocacy training today and outlines findings from research in relation to how organisations budget to meet their training needs and the current external training opportunities that are available to the advocacy sector. These are explored particularly with regards, frequency and reasons behind attendance, course suitability and areas of need. In addition to external courses, the report explores the amount of in-house training offered by advocacy organisations and issues arising. It also begins to suggest ways for projects to work together to influence developments and promote good practice in advocacy training. Overall research findings revealed that it is widely accepted by organisations that advocacy training is needed with 86% having dedicated training budgets. The way in which these were organised, however, and the amount available varied enormously amongst schemes. For many training was viewed as a luxury. 66% of organisations stated advocates, usually paid as opposed to volunteer, regularly attended courses, approximately 2 to 3 times a year. These courses were mostly provided by generic voluntary sector organisations. There is an overall lack of eternal advocacy specific courses and training is generally viewed as adhoc and patchy with many gaps needing filling. Overall, when choosing 3

4 what courses to attend people placed a lot of emphasis on the reputation of the provider and the cost of the training. 54 skills and subjects for training were asked for. 72% of courses requested could be seen in terms of skills rather then knowledge. The courses were also related to a many different areas of responsibility and roles within advocacy organisations. 80% of organisations delivered in-house training, mainly to volunteers. Much of this training was delivered or organised by the project co-ordinator. Subjects covered ranged from general advocacy induction, skills and law to client specific issues and law. 71% of organisations said they would definitely be interested in projects exploring ways for sharing skills and co-ordinating an approach to training. However, a number of issues and concerns were raised in relation to quality and relevance. The report recommends further research and work in the area of advocacy training, particularly involving the needs and views of different types of advocacy worker and taking account of ethnicity, gender, disability, etc It is recommended that advocates and advocacy organisations be supported to undertake an analysis of their needs to inform advocacy-training strategies at individual, local and national levels. Suggestions for this are given as is a recommendation for research into the content, objectives and impact of the accredited training programmes currently being piloted. It is suggested that a training forum or working group is set up to inform and develop a London wide training strategy and to explore the development of appropriate information and skills sharing environments and some comprehensive guidelines for good practice in advocacy training. 4

5 Section Two Context 1. Advocacy Training The specific training needs of advocates and the design and delivery of courses to meet them has received limited coverage in advocacy literature, although in general most commentators accept that good training is an important aspect of successful advocacy. Dorothy Atkinson found advocacy worked best with a trained and supported workforce 1 and a guide to good advocacy practice in Scotland states the need for advocates to be trained in confidentiality issues and for ongoing training and support to be offered. 2 Currently there is no nationally recognised qualification for advocates and most training appears to be organised internally on an in-house basis or through advocates attending external courses on a variety of subjects. It would appear that no in depth research has been undertaken to evaluate what impact this approach or alternatively accredited training has on the performance, quality and effectiveness of advocates. Despite this the demand for formal training can be seen to have increased and courses are being developed and called for in both general advocacy work and according to the type of advocacy that is practiced or the client group worked with. For example Andrew Dunning of the Older Persons Advocacy Alliance (OPAAL) recommends advocacy schemes and older people s organisations should lead on the development of nationally recognised training for advocates for older people in hospital. 3 Recommendations in relation to Specialist Mental Health Advocacy, are also likely to push for accredited training. 4 Historically approaches to advocacy training have varied enormously. Diversity undoubtedly exists according to the type of advocacy provided and the community groups and service users benefiting from the advocacy support. A purist Citizen Advocacy approach for example may argue against formal training in that it goes against the principles of Citizen Advocacy, stressing the importance of the matching process with the emphasis on an ordinary person not a trained person. 5 BILD, however, have recently developed a modular training pack for citizen advocates supporting people with learning difficulties. 6 In London specifically, training developments include a year long accredited training programme for volunteer advocates offered by Westminster Advocacy 1 Atkinson (1999) Advocacy: A Review JRF 2 Scottish Executive (2000) Advocacy:A Guide to Good Practice 3 Dunning 2001 Dignity on the Ward. OPAAL/ Help the Aged 4 Barnes and Brandon 2001 Best Practice in Independent Specialist Mental Health Advocacy (Draft) 5 Henderson and Pochin 2001 Page 126, A Right Result, The Policy Press 6 Brooke and Harris 2000 Pathways to Citizen Advocacy BILD 5

6 Service for Senior Residents and following research into the training needs of health advocates from black and minority ethnic communities 7 an accredited training course for advocates in East London. It is likely similar examples can be found throughout the country. In part, the current developments and discussion is a consequence of advocacy rising up the political agenda and its role in relation to the NHS and Independent Complaints Advocacy 8 and government policy and reform in relation to people with learning disabilities 9 and people with mental health problems 10. Increasingly training in advocacy is being linked to quality and thus holds implications in relation to funding and service agreements. There is a lot of work to be done, then in identifying and addressing the training needs of advocates in the current climate. This report aims to influence developments in this area and ensure advocacy organisations are involved in the future direction of advocacy training. 2. Report Background Advocacy Across London (AAL) is a support and resource agency for London s Independent Advocacy Sector and initial research undertaken to inform the role of AAL called for increased research, information, coordination and support in relation to advocacy training issues. 11 In its first six months of operation AAL researched and produced a directory of training courses of potential interest to London s Advocacy Sector. The aim was to provide an overview of the courses available incorporating both advocacy and related skills, and specific areas of knowledge and law, such as community care, housing and mental health. A small training questionnaire accompanied the directory with the aim of identifying additional external courses people felt were needed and to explore the training being provided on an in house basis. It was envisaged that ways of working together to address need could be explored. Returned training questionnaires, however, led to follow up interviews to clarify issues and it was decided that findings should be circulated to interested parties in the form of a report. To inform this further the subject of training in advocacy was chosen as a subject for debate at the Pan London Advocacy Forum, attended by 50 advocates. Advocates were encouraged to debate and feedback views on current training issues. 7 Silvera and Kapasi (2000) Health Advocacy for Minority Ethnic Londoners Kings Fund 8 Involving Patients and the Public in Health Care: A Response (2002) DOH 9 Valuing People ( 2001) DOH 10 Reforming the Mental Health Act (2000) DOH 11 CAIT Research (1998) 6

7 3. Training Issues There are obviously many training issues that can be explored. This includes how organisations currently meet their needs. For example how they organise their training budget and the existing opportunities for advocates attending training. There are questions around the appropriateness of current training providers, the information that is available and the training that is lacking. In addition there are issues over whether training in itself is needed and whether support for advocates can be obtained via different means. There are questions relating to training need according to advocacy type, client group and in terms of the different roles and responsibilities within the independent advocacy sector. In addition there are issues around in-house training, areas of expertise, potential ways forward for sharing knowledge and skills and concerns raised, including views on accreditation and quality. A diversity of experiences, views and concerns in relation to these questions exist, it is the aim of this report to outline some of these experiences, views and concerns as expressed by Independent Advocacy organisations working in the Greater London Area. 7

8 Section Three Researching the Issues 1. The Training Questionnaire AAL sent the directory and questionnaire to 80 known providers of independent advocacy in London. These 80 groups had been identified from existing databases and research into independent advocacy in London. Of the 80 questionnaires circulated 35 (42%) were completed and returned. Respondents represented a broad selection of schemes according to information given and held on our current database. They reflected the range of advocacy currently on offer in London, although like all statistics they must be read with caution and figures may not correspond as some people gave more than one answer or did not answer a question at all. In addition to the questionnaire 18 interviews were conducted to clarify answers and to explore the issues further. It should be noted that since the questionnaire the database of advocacy providers in London, held by AAL has grown therefore the findings do not incorporate their views. In addition the forms were addressed to and completed largely by Advocacy co-ordinators and scheme managers. Thus whilst a questionnaire is undoubtedly useful it can contain perception and bias and not necessarily include the comments and views of all types of advocacy worker, be them paid, volunteer, peer, citizen or self, nor do they incorporate needs in relation to ethnicity, gender, sexuality, etc. Recommendation It is therefore recommended that any further research or work in identifying or providing learning opportunities for advocates actively ensures involvement of all groups of people and for developments in advocacy training to take account of individual circumstances and needs. Respondents by Client Group Carers Children Generic Health Learning Disability Mental Health Older People Physical Disability Figure One Respondents by Client Group 8

9 Respondents by Advocacy Type Citizens Peer Professional Self Volunteer Mixed Figure Two Respondents by Advocacy Type 2. The Pan London Advocacy Forum The Pan London Advocacy Forum took place in November 2001 and was attended by 50 people representing 31 advocacy organisations in London. A key debate for the day explored issues in relation to accredited training and the group fed back their views concerning the current situation and potential area for research and development. 9

10 Section Four Findings and Analysis 1.Training Budgets Of the organisations responding to the questionnaire 30 (86%) stated they had training budgets. 5 (14%) did not. Further questioning revealed there was no common theme as to how training budgets were devised and many people were not clear about the amount or percentage of income that was available for advocacy training within their organisation. Projects working with volunteers were more likely to have budgeted for providing in-house training. In some schemes a set amount was costed per advocate, for others a lump sum was put a side to cover the costs of training and split equally within the team. For some projects the training budget depended on amounts left over once other costs had been met. Percentages of money available in budgets for training ranged from 1% to 7% of a schemes total income. For one project 15% of total income covered both the recruitment and training costs of volunteers. Analysis It is obvious from the respondents that the majority of organisations feel a need for training and budget for it. However, the amount of money available to cover the costs of training advocates varied enormously and for many people training seemed to be viewed as a luxury. Increasingly the current political climate reveals the potential development of core courses and for training to be linked to quality and effectiveness. Training could increasingly be a requirement of funders and Advocacy organisations will need to consider how reasonable budgets for training can be negotiated as part of their contracts and service level agreements. Funders in turn will need to be aware of the costs involved in providing or locating appropriate training for advocates. Recommendation Advocacy organisations budget for the training and support costs of all workers. This includes paid and volunteer advocates, management committee members and project co-ordinators and directors. Further research is undertaken to identify what a reasonable training budget consists of and guidance is offered to advocacy organisations. Advocacy Projects agree the minimum percentage of income needed to meet their training needs and support is given to advocacy organisations to negotiate or apply for funding to cover these costs. 2. Attending Training Courses Even if a healthy budget exists for training this is no guarantee that advocates and advocacy managers regularly attend courses. This can depend on whether advocates have or make the time to go on them or whether appropriate courses 10

11 are available when needed. 23 (66%) of respondents stated that advocates regularly attended training courses. Further questioning to explore what people meant by regular showed that for many this meant attending external courses two or three times a year. External courses and conferences tended to be attended by paid workers and managers, with in-house training geared for a staff team, including volunteers. The training directory, produced by AAL, was by no means an exhaustive list of courses on offer to advocacy organisations in London, but it did point to a lack of choice in relation to advocacy specific courses and skills. Although courses were offered very few were geared solely at advocates. At the forum advocates felt that current training was adhoc and patchy and that there was a lack of appropriate external training leading to each organisation having to develop their own training. The questionnaire, however, revealed that generally speaking the courses that advocates had most recently attended got the thumbs up in terms of appropriateness and groups got their information on training opportunities and attended courses from a variety of sources, many of them listed in the training directory. Respondents also viewed specific advocacy events such as the Greater London Mental Health Advocacy Network conference and the Advocacy Across London Pan London Forum as meeting training needs. Where People Go For Training Voluntary General Voluntary Specialist Statutory Professional Body Private Company Figure Three Where advocates go for training. Interviews attempted to explore the reasons why organisations and advocates chose the courses they did in greater depth. For example were choices made due to lack of choice or as a result of course relevance, timing, cost, or reputation? For many it was undoubtedly a combination of these and the reasons given have been incorporated to show the overriding factors. For example 38% stated the importance of course provider reputation. (Fig 4) Many organisations 11

12 used core providers they had used before. One organisation stated they only use trainers they know are good and this can mean briefing a trainer they have already worked with to deliver a course on a specific subject for them. Reasons for choosing to attend courses Location 7% Relevance 15% Timing 7% Reputation 38% Cost 33% Figure 4 Reasons for choosing to attend courses. Analysis There is undoubtedly a lack of external advocacy specific courses on offer, as revealed in the directory and from forum feedback, In the main advocates attended courses that were offered by the larger voluntary sector organisations, on specific areas of legislation and knowledge. Although most people felt these courses were appropriate the forum discussion fed back that overall they felt there was a lack of appropriate external courses for advocates. With many of these courses aimed at a variety of professional roles such as social workers or advisors, questions over the applicability of these and the need to bridge the gap between advocacy knowledge and advocacy principles and skills need to be raised. A number of people requested courses on legislation and how to use it in practice, however, if not tailored to the specific need of advocates these generic courses could potentially be doing more harm than good. For example advocates could be taught legislation and its application in terms of advice giving and/or the legal profession, creating a host of quasi lawyer advocates. Similarly courses available on negotiation and communication skills and on management issues may not be relevant to the advocate role and the specific dilemmas that arise. A number of organisations appear to have developed preferred or core providers for their advocates, however it is not clear why this is the case. It may point to them having found a good quality course relevant to their needs as advocacy 12

13 organisations, however, it could point to training for the sake of training with courses being attended out of tradition as opposed to identified need or appropriateness. It also may point to a lack of flexibility and unwillingness to try something new. Training is often linked to performance but advocacy organisations could explore alternative ways to meet the needs of their advocates to ensure appropriate skills development. Many of these needs may not be related to training or may be more appropriately met through support networks, conferences or management supervision. Recommendation Advocates and advocacy organisations need support to undertake both an individual and an organisational training needs analysis. This is in order to develop training strategies at local level but also to inform strategic developments in Advocacy training at National levels. A training strategy for an individual could involve: Exploring individual need in supervision sessions. This could entail the identification of any performance concerns and objectives and suitable ways of addressing them and the training needs and objectives of individuals in the context of career development, incorporating individual wishes and specialisms. Recording courses attended and evaluating impact in relation to objectives Writing findings down to formalise plans for regular appraisal. An organisational training strategy could involve: Linking individual strategies with the overall aims and objectives for the organisation in the year ahead. Formalising and presenting it in developmental terms. 3. Courses Requested Advocates were asked to identify skills and subjects that they felt courses needed to address and a total of 54 different types of courses were requested. They represent a mixture of courses, the largest proportion being generally applicable to advocacy skills and knowledge with others relevant to specific advocacy types and client groups. (Fig 5) 13

14 Self Advocacy Learning Disabilities Children Older People Mental Health General Advocacy Figure 5 Courses Requested in relation to Client Group They can also be seen in terms of skills and knowledge with 72% centred in advocacy and management skills, as opposed to 28% that could be described as knowledge based, for example training on specific legislation or systems. Hardly anyone asked for courses linking theory with practice or packaging specific knowledge together with advocacy skills. The courses could be seen more in relation to areas of responsibility or experience within an organisation. Courses requested in relation to experience or role Doing Advocacy Managing Advocacy Organisation Changing Environment and Law Figure 6 Courses requested in relation to experience or role. Despite the growing debate around accreditation, only one person requested formal training for advocates on the questionnaire and this was specific to Mental Health Advocacy. A group explored this at the forum and felt accreditation could 14

15 assist with increased recognition of advocacy and a minimum agreed standard in training was needed to allow service users to have assurance that their advocates were trained. Questions were raised, however, over who would set the standards and curriculum. Alternatively many people expressed the need for training but had concerns over accreditation. Could it meet the diverse needs of people? Would it substitute user feedback, lead to conformity and professionalisation or becomes a pre-condition for funding? Analysis The variety of courses requested suggest that when people talk about advocacy training, they are often not talking about the same thing. There are different needs for the different people involved, from volunteers to management. Some courses are specific to client groups but not all, suggesting huge possibilities for courses to be developed on subjects/skills applicable to all forms of advocacy. Interestingly many groups requested courses that were already being provided elsewhere, all be it from the more general course providers. This could point to their difficulties with accessing information on the courses already available, however, it may also point to them holding the view that these courses are not relevant to their needs as they are not specifically geared for advocacy. Many people have concerns over accredited training for advocates, but despite this some groups are developing courses in isolation, offering it to people in order for them to undertake advocacy work. Accredited courses are therefore probably being developed for a variety of reasons and may only be suitable for specific groups of advocates, not necessarily appropriate or transferable to all forms. Recommendations As part of any organisational, local or national advocacy training strategy, need must be explored in relation to advocate and management experience and role. Increased co-ordination is needed to support the development of advocacy specific courses linking generic advocacy skills and theory and courses linking general advocacy skills to specific areas of knowledge. The content, objectives and impact of the accredited training programmes currently being piloted need to be investigated and evaluated before further accredited courses are developed. 15

16 Options for this include: The setting up of a training forum or working group, incorporating all forms of advocacy, to inform and develop a London wide generic training strategy. Fundraising for a training co-ordinator to implement the strategy and to work in partnership with external course providers to arrange the development of advocacy appropriate courses. The development of specific focus groups and strategies for specific types of advocacy and fundraising to support implementation. 4. In-House Training and the Sharing of Skills 80% of organisations stated they provide some form of in-house training and subject area varied. Subjects covered by in house training Client Specific General Advocacy Skills General Law and Benefits Figure 7 Subjects covered by In-house Training The frequency at which it was provided varied with the majority offering it when need arises. For example when they get new volunteers or when specific areas of knowledge need attention. Others offered training at regular intervals such as two to twelve times a year. For many schemes the in-house training relating to advocacy is provided by the co-ordinator, often for volunteers, however, external trainers were more likely to be invited to deliver courses to cover specialist areas of knowledge. The questionnaire also asked for views in relation to projects sharing skills and offering training to each other. 71% stated they would be interested with 14.5% saying they might be. 20% said they would be interested in joining a working 16

17 group to explore the issues in greater detail with a further 20% stating they would possibly get involved. Projects stated sharing skills would raise a number of issues and concerns for them included: Time Constraints Availability Appropriateness of Teaching Methods Relevance to Client Group Duplication of Work Confidence in Provider Costs (Fee Structure and Resources) Venue (Size and Travel) Confidentiality Equity Analysis At the forum there was some sense that organisations develop their own training as a consequence of the adhoc and patchy nature of the training opportunities currently available and the lack of appropriate external courses. This may be the case but a positive view of this would be that these in-house courses are tailored to meet the specific needs of the organisation and their advocates and thus more appropriate and valuable to the development of advocacy skills. The variety of courses shows the huge amount of experience, knowledge and skill available within the advocacy sector. It is interesting, however that of the courses requested, non related to the training needs of the co-ordinators, managers or the advocates who have a role in delivering the in house advocacy training. Once again it was not clear whether programmes were devised strategically and whether the person delivering the training had sufficient knowledge of appropriate adult learning theory and methods of teaching to make the teaching work, or indeed whether people brought in from outside had sufficient understanding of advocacy. Whilst Advocacy organisations are obviously willing to explore the possibilities of sharing these skills their concerns over quality, etc, would need to be addressed to take this forward. Recommendations There needs to be further research and evaluation in to the in-house training currently being provided within the advocacy sector in London. 17

18 A comprehensive database of advocacy friendly trainers and training organisations needs to be compiled for the use of projects delivering or developing in-house training programmes. Training and support should be offered to the trainers around the development and delivery of training programmes. A working group should be convened to inform and develop appropriate information and skills sharing environments and processes. 18

19 Section Five Conclusion This initial piece of research undoubtedly reveals the scope for further research, development and support around training issues in advocacy. From talking to advocates and co-ordinators, opportunities for external training are often limited due to lack of funds or opportunities. Directions and approaches to training can obviously vary according to local need or advocacy philosophy, however, there are many issues that transcend all forms of advocacy and now, more than ever, the current legislative context points to the need for the development of a national advocacy training strategy. Currently advocates can view training partly as a luxury and co-ordinators can develop their own training programmes, however, it is increasingly likely that training will become a national requirement for some forms of advocacy such as Independent Complaints Advocacy or Specialist Mental Health Advocacy. The absence of a lead National Advocacy Agency means it is currently difficult for the Advocacy sector to take a lead in influencing these developments at national level. Hopefully this situation will change in a few years time, however, there is the current possibility that the future content of advocacy training will be developed and imposed by people who are not connected with the advocacy processes or by people who have little or no understanding of advocacy principles. Increasingly we have institutes of higher education proposing degree courses and accreditation within social work departments and counselling schools with no research as to the impact they will have on the delivery of advocacy. It is hoped then that this research can be the impetus behind a process of individual advocates, advocacy organisations and advocacy networks exploring and analysing their training needs to better inform the developments in training that are likely to take place. In addition it can hopefully inform on issues relating to potential need such as networking, management and support. Members of London s Advocacy Sector possess a diverse amount of experience and knowledge in relation to the management and delivery of advocacy services it is now time to explore ways of putting that experience to good use to develop some comprehensive guidelines for good practice in Advocacy Training. 19

20 Section Six Appendices 1. The Questionnaire (Written Questions) Project Details? Does your project have a dedicated training budget? Do advocates regularly attend training courses? If so, are these courses mainly skills or knowledge based, or both? Please give details of any recent courses attended? Were they appropriate? If not, why not? Where would you normally go for information on training courses? What skills or subjects would you particularly like to see training courses cover? Do you provide any in-house training for workers? If so, how often and on what? Would you be interested in projects sharing skills and offering training to each other? What issues would this raise for you? Would you be interested in joining a working group to explore the training issues that arise from this questionnaire? (Follow Up Telephone Questions) What size is the organisation? Number of co-ordinators? Paid advocates? Volunteer advocates? Etc. How is the training budget organised? What is the proportion of the overall budget? Who regularly attends the eternal courses? How often is regular? What makes you choose the courses you do? Cost, Reputation etc? Who is the in-house training for? Who delivers it? 2. Courses Requested Advanced Advocacy Skills for experienced advocates Information Giving Time Management Fundraising Publicity and Promotion Effective Counselling Skills Managing Conflict with care staff Personal Security Confidentiality Issues Support and development of volunteers. 20

21 Managing Volunteers Volunteer selection and interview process Managing volunteer mentoring schemes Finding advocates and keeping them Assertiveness Skills Tackling Racism in relation to advocates and clients Conflict Resolution Skills Public Speaking skills Negotiation Skills Issues in Advocacy The changing role of the social worker in light of PCT s Benefits application, appeal. Expectations and Outcomes of Complaints Local and London developments in relation to health and social care structures. Human Rights Act IT for co-ordinators Advocacy in the NHS Advocacy in relation to housing systems. Aspects of residential care, assessment, access, support, equal opps, privacy, independence. Needs Analysis Risk Assessment General Mental Health Advocacy Dealing with people with Psychosis Negotiating with mental health professionals Professional Training specific to Mental Health advocacy Child Protection Awareness in Mental Health Advocacy New Legislation and how to use it Psychiatric medication and other treatments Clinical Effectiveness Understanding hospital admission processes. Challenging behaviour management Basic Counselling Skills Advanced Communication Skills Citizen Advocacy Issues Access to Education Getting Jobs Moving House How to be an effective facilitator Recruitment and selection Introduction to Law Disability Awareness Community Care Law Elder Abuse Issues Advocacy for older people with dementia and confusion. 21

22 22