The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

A MAP OF INDEPENDENT ADVOCACY ACROSS SCOTLAND

GREATER GLASGOW ADVOCACY

NHS GLASGOW

There are six local authorities within NHS Greater Glasgow:
Glasgow City Council (entirely within GGNHS)
East Dunbartonshire (entirely within GGNHS)
West Dunbartonshire (Clydebank area)
East Renfrewshire (Eastwood area)
South Lanarkshire (Rutherglen and Cambuslang area)
North Lanarkshire (Steppes/Moodiesburn/Chryston area)

Advocacy Planning Process

The advocacy plan and commissioning arrangements with Glasgow City Council were undertaken through the Advocacy Steering Group. This group is no longer meeting and revised planning arrangements need to be implemented.

Past consultation with local advocacy providers has indicated their preference not to take part in such a group, but rather to delegate responsibility for the co-ordination of advocacy planning and development within Greater Glasgow, to the lead commissioner from NHS Greater Glasgow, and in Glasgow city, to the lead commissioner from the Council - both of whom liaise closely with and jointly contribute to the Advocacy plan.

Outwith Glasgow city, the commissioners for each of the respective local authorities have their own specific arrangements by which they commission advocacy, in some cases with joint contribution from NHS Greater Glasgow.

Advocacy Organisations in Greater Glasgow

Project details

• Not independent (Managed by Glasgow Association for Mental Health)
• Professional advocacy
• Adults (over 16) with mental health problems
• Greater Glasgow NHS Board area

Project details

• Independent
• Professional and volunteer advocacy
• Advocacy and information service for older people and people with dementia, mental health, learning disability, sensory impairment, physical disability, acquired brain injury and additional communication needs.
• East Dunbartonshire
• Evaluated by ASA in March 2003

Project details

• Not independent (part of national support network)
• Professional
• Mentally disordered offenders
• Greater Glasgow area

Project details

• Independence status to be confirmed (managed by Drumchapel Law and Money Advice Centre)
• Citizen and volunteer advocacy
• Vulnerable older people; people with dementia; learning disabilities; mental health problems; physical disabilities; and carers
• Drumchapel area
• Independently evaluated by an external consultant in August 2002

Project details

• Independent status to be confirmed (managed by Drumchapel Law and Money Advice centre)
• Professional and volunteer advocacy
• Vulnerable children and young people (aged 8-18)
• Drumchapel area

Project details

• Independent
• Citizen Advocacy
• People with learning disabilities
• Glasgow city, East Dunbartonshire, and East Renfrewshire (see Argyll & Clyde Health Board area)
• Evaluated by ASA in June 2003

Project details

• Independent
• Professional advocacy
• Clients from black and ethnic minority communities
• Greater Glasgow area

Project details

• Independent (part of national organisation)
• Citizen Advocacy
• Children and adults with a learning disability, including those with profound and multiple disabilities
• North West of Glasgow
• Evaluated in 2000 using CAIT tool

Project details

• Independent
• Collective advocacy and support for self-advocacy
• People with learning disabilities
• Glasgow

Project details

• Independent
• Professional, citizen and group advocacy
• Adults (over 18) with physical disabilities, learning disabilities and mental health problems. Also older people
• Main service provision East End of Glasgow (generic service); Rutherglen and Cambuslang (generic service); older people's service throughout Glasgow city; service for people with mental health issues South Lanarkshire

Also, GGNHSB 10,893 for Lomond & Argyll Advocacy Service

Total Statutory Funding for Greater Glasgow Advocacy in 2003/4

*Does not include 25,000 from East Renfrewshire Council for Equal Say (this is included under Argyle & Clyde entry)

*Excludes SIP funding

*Does not include funding for Drumchapel Advocacy Project, and Drumchapel Children's Rights Project, as their independent status has yet to be confirmed. Does not include 16,000 from GGNHSB allocated to older people in South Lanarkshire, as provider is yet to be confirmed.

Note: The amounts for client groups cited above indicate specific provision, however generic advocacy providers (including The Advocacy Project and Drumchapel Advocacy Project) tend to prioritise people with mental health problems, learning disabilities, acquired brain injuries, dementia, and other community care service users, so in real terms the amounts spent on these groups will be higher than indicated for the separate groups listed above.

Similarly, the figure for collective advocacy would be higher in real terms, as The Advocacy Project provides collective advocacy in addition to individual, however there is no breakdown of funding for these.

Gaps in Independent Advocacy

• Children and young people
• People with physical disabilities
• Older people in East Dunbartonshire area
• People with dementia in Bearsden/Milngavie, Rutherglen & Cambuslang
• Homeless people and people affected by addictions
• Collective advocacy for people with mental health problems (GGNHSB invests in Glasgow Mental Health Network to enable service users to work in partnership with the statutory sector in planning and implementing services, however this is not recognised as Collective Advocacy)

Priorities for Development

• Children and young people
• Independent Mental Health Advocacy, particularly collective
• Capacity building of existing advocacy agencies to provide ethnically and culturally appropriate services
• 3 year service level agreements across the board
• More structured planning process with clear lines of communication and accountability, and links into wider decision making groups
• Housing and Education Departments to be included in ongoing advocacy planning processes
• Rolling programme of regular consultation
• Education and awareness raising for statutory staff
• Wider promotion of existing services, to potential referrers and public, with accessible literature including publications in minority languages, and system of subsidised translation and interpretation for advocacy agencies working with people who might need this
• Ongoing commitment to external evaluation

Conclusions

Greater Glasgow NHS Board and its planning partners have achieved much of what they set out to do in their last Advocacy plan. Notably, they have honoured their commitment to fund advocacy for older people throughout the city of Glasgow, and to commission a new service for people from Black and ethnic minority communities. All that remains from the main list of priorities identified in the first round of three-year advocacy plans is independent advocacy for children and young people.

The decision of Glasgow NHS Board to commit to 3-year funding across the board is most welcome, and it is hoped that other funding partners will follow suit, as East Dunbartonshire Council have done in agreeing to extend the funding of citizen advocacy for people with mental health problems and learning disabilities.

However, the proportion spent on independent advocacy for people with mental health problems and learning disabilities is relatively low in Greater Glasgow compared with other areas (most provision for specialist mental health advocacy is non-independent whilst provision for people with learning disabilities, although independent, is relatively scarce). This will need to be addressed if the statutory agencies are to meet the requirements of the New Mental Health Act in relation to independent advocacy. With regard to mental health, it may be prudent to commence negotiations with advocacy agencies attached to other service providers on how they feel they can best be supported to become independent, without compromising the needs of their clients.

The other main concern is with regard to the process of planning independent advocacy in Greater Glasgow. Whilst generally advocacy services have so far been successfully commissioned, the process is currently somewhat ad hoc and without any formally agreed structure; therefore it is over-reliant on the commitment and skill of the responsible commissioners to drive it, leaving advocacy vulnerable. Even if the wider group of stakeholders decides not to constitute a formal representative Advocacy Planning Group, it will be important to agree an ongoing process for co-ordinating aspects of infrastructure within the advocacy plan, for instance, how can training and awareness of all statutory sector staff best be implemented and reviewed? (This issue will, in the first instance, be addressed at a consultation event due to be held in September.) In any case, careful consideration needs to be given to the linking of independent advocacy into all policy, decision-making and funding streams.

« Previous | Contents | Next »