'Adding Weight' in Independent Advocacy

Introduction

During the recent 'Amazing Advocacy' day in Edinburgh we discussed the idea of 'adding weight' to a person's ideas, hopes, ambitions and opinions. We began to make a list of relevant points – and I thought this should be shared. Since the event I've added my own comments, and further additional points. I'd be happy to add further clarifications or details, or even to have people argue over the text in the expectation that this will bring learning to us all (refer to the end of the document for how to participate).

Please note that language in this article involves some struggles – for instance in trying to account for the word 'advocate' covering all sorts of arrangements. 'Advocacy' work may also involve all sorts of related but quite different practices, such as:

• making an argument or stating a particular point of view;
• supporting a person to do this for themselves;
• trying to bring others on board to share a view of a desired future;
• helping a person to work on having others support them towards achieving a desired outcome.

In trying to cover all these activities I use the words 'argument', 'position', and 'point of view'. I do this in order to try to make clear (despite the common misunderstanding) that advocacy work goes well beyond putting forward a point of view on specific options.

In an attempt to add clarity I'm also going to be forced to invent some terms to distinguish between the various people involved:
'Focus person' is used to mean the person with whose life we're concerned – the person who the advocacy work is focused on supporting.
'Advocate' is used to mean a person supporting another person (or indeed a group) within the framework set by the Advocacy 2000 Principles and Standards document. This covers a range of activity – and not all 'advocates' will use the word as a title.
'Challenged person/people' is perhaps the clumsiest phrase, but is necessary to describe simply those whose listening, cooperation, or support is sought by the actions of the advocate or focus person.

Background
'Adding Weight' is one of the four outcomes of Independent Advocacy work discussed in the Advocacy 2000 Principles and Standards document.

The document reads…
"Independent Advocacy organisations aim to add weight to a person's (or group's) ideas, hopes, ambitions and opinions to increase the amount of control they have over their life, and so that poor practice is challenged. If an advocate is supporting a group rather than an individual, this applies to the opinions of the group as a whole."

The Scottish Independent Advocacy Alliance principles and standards also say:
"Independent Advocacy helps people to have control over their lives and to be fully involved in decisions which affect them."

'Empowerment' is an associated outcome for Independent Advocacy work which is also listed in the Advocacy 2000 Principles and Standards:
"Independent Advocacy organisations aim to empower people. They hope that people will be able to expand their hopes and ambitions where there is a risk that these will be, or have been, heavily influenced by those with conflicting interests. They hope that people will become more confident and able to make others take note of their opinions, hopes and ambitions, and less easily influenced by those with conflicting interests. They try to create a situation where people are more able to access the information they need to make informed judgements, and are more able to think through their options. They hope people will develop a greater feeling of self-worth, and receive support from their involvement with the organisation or advocate. Those supporting groups aim for the empowerment of the group and its individual members, and they hope the effectiveness of the group's internal organisation will develop."

The Scottish Independent Advocacy Alliance principles and standards say:
"Independent Advocacy helps people to have control over their lives and to be fully involved in decisions which affect them."

---

Specific actions which add weight

Repeating things.
It may sometimes be appropriate to repeat what a focus person has said if it hasn't been listened to:
"Can I highlight that nobody has taken notice that John said…"
It may be appropriate to repeat yourself as an advocate:
"I'm going to repeat myself because nobody has actually answered the question which John had asked me to discuss with you, which was…"
Of course it may also be appropriate to support a focus person to repeat themselves rather than speaking for them.

Asking "what could be done to make this happen?"
It may be helpful to take a positive approach – working from the assumption that something is possible until someone states it isn't.

Asking "why not?"
It may be helpful to push a challenged person into justifying exactly what reasons lead them to conclude that something isn't possible. Perhaps ask people to be precise about this (recording the details).

Ask for specific meeting details to be minuted.
Sometimes an unofficial policy seems to exist, or a challenged person's own attitude or practice may be different from official policy. In these circumstances asking for the point the challenged person is making to be clearly minuted may make them change their position. It may also provide evidence to be referred to later. Even if this can't happen it may be useful to publicly record in writing a clear note of a challenged person's points (perhaps in their exact words). It may also be powerful to ask for details of the argument that we, as advocate and focus person, are making to be recorded clearly.

Have 'firey' eyes.
Some people have a nature or even features which inherently make them harder to ignore. People without these characteristics might consider that the general way they dress or behave or speak also has effects in adding weight (or taking weight away).

Supporting different behaviour.
Sometimes there are situations where it is possible to appropriately support a focus person to behave in a way that breaks the expectations of others. The subsequent shifting of expectations may be helpful.

Working beyond formal situations.
We all see situations on television where legal advocates continue to work tenaciously in putting forward a point of view outside of a formal situation – for instance in speaking to television reporters on the steps of a courthouse. Advocates can (and should) do the same.

Being passionate but clear at the same time.
Often when a person puts forward a point of view passionately their use of language becomes less clear. An argument with both passion and clarity can be harder to ignore.

Supporting a person to speak for themselves.
It can sometimes be much more powerful for a focus person to speak for themselves than to have an advocate speak for them. This can be the case even if the focus person puts forward an argument less cleverly or fluently. Strong consideration should always be given to the long term effects of advocacy work – perhaps 'losing' one argument while working in an empowering way may lead to a more important argument being 'won' later, and indeed the 'empowerment' may sometimes be much more significant to the person than 'losing' the argument anyway.

Treating the person seriously.
If we are supporting a focus person who hasn't been used to being listened to then treating what they say seriously can help them to be more confident about their point of view. We might achieve this by listening intently, asking for much more information, writing down what they say in their words (and making sure they know we've done so), and by avoiding offering any judgement on what they say. This can be difficult because judgement is easily sensed.

Avoiding "this isn't my opinion."
An advocate stating that the opinion they are putting forward is that of the focus person and not their own takes weight away from their argument. Challenged people may infer that the advocate disagrees with the focus person's point of view. It often adds weight to an argument if an advocate is assumed to agree with the argument or position they are standing up for (even if it's known logically that they might not).

Maintaining distance
In some situations it may add weight to an advocated position if the advocate refuses to become drawn into an atmosphere of professional cosiness with the challenged people. As a defensive tactic those challenged by the advocacy may seek to create personal bonds with an advocate, decreasing the likelihood that the advocate will act in a way which increases the personal discomfort of the challenged people. An advocate may also be 'awarded' with professional status and respect from challenged people for behaving in a 'professional' manner – thus discouraging them from certain more effective (less 'professional') behaviours.

Closing distance
There may be situations when drawing challenged people into a more personal relationship with the focus person or advocate may be useful. On the whole this will work best when 'distance' is closed by an increase in respect from the challenged person for the focus person and advocate.

Basing a position on solid foundations
There are some situations where those advocating may be able to build their case on solid ground – where policy or law makes it clear that challenged people have no alternative but to comply with a course of action. Where such solid ground does not exist there may still be useful precedent – examples of a course of action taking place for others or in the past.

Basing a position on what's right
Sometimes, in contrast to the point above, it may be better to avoid being drawn into argument over policy, law or procedures. There are plenty of situations where what's fair or right or reasonable isn't supported by these. It may be that those who are challenged seek to draw discussion toward law or procedures – because they are on more favourable territory here. The most effective advocacy work might resist this.

---

Having the right associations.

The list above contains points about the actions of an advocate, however the associations of the 'advocate' are also significant. Look at the list of advocates below. Identical arguments or behaviours by them (or actions by the focus person with the support of the advocate) will all be received very differently. Very broadly action by later advocates in this list will have more weight:

• a relative or long-term close associate of the person seen to be on their side for this and no other reason;
  
• a volunteer who is understood to be doing this "because of personal experience of similar injustice";
  
• a person whose job is to be an advocate;
  
• a volunteer who is understood to be doing this "because it's right for people to be heard";
  
• someone known to be employed by (or volunteering on behalf of) an ordinary group of concerned citizens (i.e. people with no other associations with the situation and no reason to be involved other than seeing unfairness);
  
• a individual ordinary member of the public who is seen to be doing this "because what's happening to Fred simply isn't right";
  
• one of a group of ordinary citizens who are standing together on this specific situation "because what is happening to Fred simply isn't right";
  
• an ordinary citizen in either of the last two situations but who also has an unusual source of high social status (e.g. as a well known footballer, politician, union leader, or police officer).
  

Of course one of the reasons why involvement of the 'advocates' later in this list may add more weight is because they are increasingly less likely to be involved spontaneously – and because to engineer such a situation is increasingly difficult. An important further consideration is that the behaviours of these different 'advocates' aren't normally identical – for instance with a typical paid advocate having more practice at 'advocating' effectively than a typical 'ordinary community member'.

---

More...

Amazing Advocacy was the first in what is intended to be a series of events bringing Independent Advocacy organisations/people together to celebrate the power of their work, and to think as hard as possible about how to do it really well.

Look out for Amazing Advocacy 2.

The Advocacy 2000 principles and standards document is available on the internet here: www.isja.org.uk/articles_18_A2KPS.html
The Scottish Independent Advocacy Alliance document is available on their website www.siaa.org.uk

Please comment freely about this text...