Advocacy

jacqueline.clark@rotherham.gov.uk

Advocacy is taking action to help people say what they want, secure their rights,

represent their interests and obtain services they need. Advocates and advocacy

providers work in partnership with the people they support and take their side.

Advocacy promotes social inclusion, equality and social justice

Strategic Context: Advocacy service independent of the Local Authority is an area of strategic importance it is essential that as an organisation we: • meet the increased demand • ensure compliance with the new duties under the Care Act 2014 • achieve the same outcomes for people requiring advocacy services

as for the wider population• achieve value for money • provide innovative solutions • promote independence, self-advocacy and mutual support.

Care Act 2014 LA’s have a duty to:  • Intervene early and prevent care needs becoming

more serious • Involve people in decisions • Ensure people have access information and

advice • Arrange for an independent advocate -

Safeguarding Enquiry or Review

Mental Capacity Act 2005 The right to an independent mental capacity advocate was introduced by the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Mental Health Act 2007 An independent mental health advocate is a statutory advocate, granted specific roles and responsibilities under the Mental Health Act.

Independent Mental Capacity Advocacy;

Joint agreement with two other Local Authorities, Sheffield and Doncaster

Independent Mental Health Advocacy;

joint agreement contract shared in partnership with Doncaster

Care Act Advocacy;

In Rotherham

• a complex picture• multiple providers • range of agreements types i.e. block and spot purchase

or a combination of the two. • joint agreements with neighbouring authorities • Rotherham as a single entity purchaser• Tenures for each arrangement cover various time

scales

Commissioning model described above is the single service model where specific forms of advocacy are commissioned to deliver specific forms of advocacy under one contract.

The disadvantages with this model: • More laborious contract management• Fewer opportunities for efficiency gain • Unless well-coordinated services can

be disjointed, impacting on quality and continuity

• Small contracts are more susceptible to staffing problems and service disruption

• Capacity to flex delivery may be limited

Commissioning issues:• lack of advocacy that is independent of the LA and to meet our

statutory obligations under the Care Act 2014 • Contracts/service specified vary • inefficient use of contract monitoring • in complex situations - inefficient system. Access issues:• Lack of clarity on referral pathways • It is not clear to service users

Capacity issues:• Advocacy for specific client groups are disproportionate • lack of advocacy - people who require it prior to making

contact with the Council • Statutory advocacy contracts are over-subscribed

Demand:

In excess of 9,000 hours of advocacy per annum.

In region of 1,500 people

Predicted increase of demand:• increase in the numbers who are most likely to

require advocacy (Source; POPPI, PANSI)• legislation change (Care Act 2014)• transformation of services • Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards application as a

result of the Supreme Court’s judgement in the ‘Cheshire-West’ case.

Complexities

• legacy of service provision• concern-competitive tender

process• combination of advocacy and

other support services within one contract

• not co-terminus • market static • dominant purchaser

Time Scales

• Model• Specify Service• Consult• Approval• 5 month extension • Using the electronic system YORTENDER the

minimum timescales for this procedure is 65 days (30 days for first stage, 25days for second stage and 10 day standstill period).

• September new service