Jon, 16, was deep in preparation for his GCSEs when he discovered his local authority wanted to move him from foster care to semi-independent accommodation. So Jon contacted Barnardo's who offered to negotiate with the council on his behalf.
"He wasn't happy," reveals Sam Sprigge, his advocate and Barnardo's children's service manager for Barnet and Enfield, who writes to all looked-after children in the two authorities offering to talk to decision makers for them. "He had visited his new place and wasn't comfortable there. He was also concerned that the move would affect his exam performance."
Sprigge got in touch with social services. "The manager agreed to delay the move so Jon could concentrate on his GCSEs," he continues. "Social services are now reconsidering whether to go ahead with the move at all."
Jon, like many children, found that it took an adult to speak on his behalf before he got what he wanted. However, local authorities have only been compelled to establish procedures for considering complaints by looked-after children and children in need since 1 April this year, due to the implementation of Section 119 of the Children and Adoption Act 2002.
Advocates can benefit all ages
The 1 April legislation also obliges councils to provide advocacy services for parents and carers. Bridget Lindley, deputy chief executive of the Family Rights Group, which provides support for families whose children are involved with social services, says advocates can also benefit adults given that 85 per cent of young people on the child protection register live at home.
Child advocates are not new, the National Youth Advocacy Service has been providing them for 30 years, but the number has risen sharply recently.
The service's director Chris Hindley estimates that, last year, 50,000 children contacted them, with 10,000 receiving formal advocacy and 2,000 receiving legal help. And, according to Children's Rights Officers and Advocates (CROA), the membership organisation for professionals in the field, there are now almost 300 children's advocates in England and Wales.
This dramatic rise in numbers began in 1999 when the Government introduced the Quality Protects programme. The funding received by local authorities for children in care came with the message that young people should have a greater say on how it was allocated. The following year Sir Ronald Waterhouse's report Lost in Care cited examples of children's complaints going unheard and called for more advocates. Listening to children was also one of the main messages of Keeping Children Safe, the Government's response to the Victoria Climbie inquiry report, which was published alongside the Every Child Matters green paper.
"Before Quality Protects there were very few children's rights services," explains Jane Pickerden, head of communications and marketing at the Who Cares? Trust. "Now every local authority has a children's rights service and the provision of advocacy is part of it."
Unfortunately, although advocacy is higher on the agenda than ever before, the service is fraught with difficulties, not least a lack of understanding about the advocate's role. "We try to solve a young person's problem then get out," says Hindley.
Another potential source of conflict is that advocates are supposed to speak on behalf of children rather than trying to guide them in a direction that other professionals want. "People are happy with advocates until they think they are advocating something stupid or dangerous," says Kate Gledhill, acting national development manager at CROA. "But the advocate's role is to promote children's voices," she adds, "it's not to do what the corporate parent wants."
Who provides the service?
The question of who provides the service is equally thorny. In its guidance document Get it Sorted, published to help local authorities establish effective advocacy services in the run up to 1 April, the Department for Education and Skills states that advocacy services should "as far as possible, be funded and managed in a way that ensures independence from the service commissioner". However, some local authorities employ their own advocates, which raises questions about independence.
Other councils contract the service out to voluntary-sector providers, such as the National Youth Advocacy Service, Voice for the Child in Care, the NSPCC and Barnardo's. Children's rights organisations prefer the outsourcing model, but even this option can get messy. "We tender for contracts in a very competitive environment with other charities," says Hindley. "A lot of the time it comes down to cost, which means quality of service can go down."
A third-party provider may also be disinclined to rattle too many cages on a child's behalf if it means upsetting the people who have to decide whether to renew their contract.
However, for the NSPCC's children's services manager Caroline Kibble, it isn't necessarily a bad thing if there are some tensions in the council-provider relationship. "A head of children's services told me advocacy was like a stone in his shoe but that is how it should be: a constant reminder about listening to the views of looked-after children," she says.
Most contracts are awarded for three years and begin with service level agreements outlining what is expected. "A partnership approach is a good one," advises Kath Tunstall, head of children's services at Bradford Metropolitan District Council.
As a result, Barnardo's now manages some Bradford council staff, including a children's complaints officer. Tunstall believes having council and charity staff working together, under Barnardo's management, ensures the service is independent.
Croydon council has adopted a similar approach, paying the NSPCC to provide advocacy to its 759 looked-after children. A steering group meets quarterly to discuss progress. For Ros Pearman, manager of the council's Quality Protects programme, awarding the charity a three-year contract, ensures "some distance and independence" to its advocacy services.
While the models of cross-sector co-operation look great, advocates at the sharp end know that, in reality, conflicts are inevitable. "We're advocating the wishes and feelings of young people but that doesn't mean everybody will jump up and down to give them what they want," admits Ted Normandale, a former psychiatric nurse who is now a National Youth Advocacy Service advo-cate. "We have to negotiate and sometimes we might win."
But he says even defeat is better than apathy. "Young people feel it's important to be listened to, whether or not they ultimately get what they want. What's most important is to involve them in the decision-making."
Children's lives are better
And there is widespread agreement that the statutory requirement has made children's lives better. "It seems local authorities are taking their responsibilities seriously," says Nicola Wyld, legal and policy officer for Voice for the Child in Care. "They are ensuring children have access to an advocate and if it isn't a permanent advocate they are making temporary arrangements."
CROA's Gledhill adds that the Department of Health's introduction of National Standards for the Provision of Children's Advocacy Services in 2002 "raised the standards of the profession. It's no longer seen as something for a bunch of maverick, trendy left children's rights providers."
And she expects the appointment of an English children's commissioner will put advocacy even further up the agenda. "It automatically gives children the message that they have a powerful voice out there fighting for them," she says.
TELL ME MORE
- The Quality Protects programme is part of the Government's strategy for tackling social exclusion and includes information on children's advocateswww.dfes.gov.uk/qualityprotects
- Protocol on Advice and Advocacy for Parents is a guide by Bridget Lindley and Martin Richards of Cambridge University's Centre for Family Research to promote advocacywww.sps. cam.ac.uk/cfr/advocacy protocol.pdf
- Get it Sorted, a guide to providing effective advocacy www.dfes.gov.uk/childrensadvocacy/docs/GetitSorted.pdf
CASE STUDY - A voice for children in Wales
Tros Gynnal, which was set up after the Children's Society pulled out of Wales in 2002, has developed one of the most innovative advocacy services in its relatively short existence. The organisation advocates on behalf of 1,500 children through projects run on behalf of local authorities in Cardiff, Bangor, Swansea, Bridgend, Merthyr Tydfil, Powys and Pontypool.
Kelly Gammon, a former Children's Society advocate who now co-ordinates training at Tros Gynnal, reveals that the service had evolved considerably since her former employer's days. "The Children's Society was mostly focused on looked-after children," she says. "What we do now is more holistic by reaching more children in more environments." For instance, the Swansea service includes a pilot project on health advocacy based in two city hospitals where staff help children access health services.
Telling Concerns, children's commissioner Peter Clarke's review of the effectiveness of complaints, whistleblowing and advocacy within the welfare system, laid the foundations for change. The report went further than any English legislation by explicitly stating that "making advocacy available to all children and young children in Wales should be the ultimate aim".
George Jones, participation and development officer at Tros Gynnal, believes Welsh councils valued the "arms-length" approach to advocacy more than English ones by showing greater willingness to contract out services.
"It is seen to be independent," he believes, "so it becomes more approachable." Tros Gynnal's service level agreements usually include quarterly meetings between members of both parties to discuss progress and an annual review. "If something comes up at three consecutive quarterly reports something needs to be done," he explains.
However, Jones admits that the three-year contract system can cause difficulties if third-party providers are constantly changed. "New providers are seldom ready to take over the contract on day one," he adds. And there is a danger that, by contracting out services, local authorities could be tempted to adopt a "who collects the dustbins approach" to children's advocacy.
"It can boil down to who is the cheapest and it's far too crucial for that," he concludes.
