Published in Inroads, the newsletter of Citizen Advocacy Eastern Suburbs, Issue 8 (December, 1998)
These are located on the Citizen Advocacy Network website,
in the section on articles and policy documents.
You can’t build a reputation on what you are going to do. -- Henry Ford, American automobile manufacturer (1863 - 1947)
When people first hear about the nature of Citizen Advocacy, some will often query the status of advocates, in terms of the recognition and authority accorded to their role in representing individual people with disabilities. Typically, in response, we would point to the following indicators of the legitimacy of a citizen advocate’s role.
(i) At least in Australia, Citizen Advocacy is funded, and mandated, by one level of government (the Commonwealth Government) to undertake its mission of facilitating independent, personal advocacy for people with disabilities by suitable citizens.
(ii) More recently, legislation-derived standards -- e.g., the Disability Services Standards -- which are intended to regulate (at least in theory) the conduct of government-run or government-funded agencies, clearly refer to, and acknowledge the role of, advocates in representing people with disabilities who are clients of such services. Thus, in relation to the above two points, it may be argued that the ostensible
imprimatur of government -- as manifested in legislation and, derivatively, prescribed standards --can provide a citizen advocate with a "legitimate" entrée in embarking on his/her advocacy role.
(iii) Most importantly, however, is the "standing" an advocate can develop, as a concerned and committed party, especially through continuity and depth of involvement with the protege. It is this third point, the nature and implications of advocate standing, which is explored hereon.
Standing, as the term is used here, refers to the perceived legitimacy of involvement of one person with another, particularly when acting on behalf of the other person. For example, parents will generally have high standing in their role of raising -- and making decisions for -- their children, at least until the siblings reach a certain age. Clearly, in the context of Citizen Advocacy, standing attributed to, or gained by, the citizen advocate is crucial, since the advocate’s role is to represent the interests of his/her protege.
Usually when a match is arranged by the Citizen Advocacy office, the advocate will not have had any prior involvement with, or obligation to, the protege -- unlike, for example, family members of the protege, presuming there is active family presence -- and so the advocate’s "credentials" may be questioned by at least some parties. Particularly in those instances where the advocacy is directed "against" some party (say, an agency of which the protege is a service recipient), efforts are likely to be made by that party to undermine or delegitimize the role of the feather-ruffling advocate. Obviously, in the above scenario, if the advocate has high standing -- clearly acknowledged legitimacy of representation -- it will be more difficult for the service-providing agency to denigrate or dismiss the advocate. The advocate’s standing, therefore, may be of decisive importance in advancing the interests of his/her protege, especially in the face of non-cooperation or hostility from other parties with competing interests.
In Citizen Advocacy, the potential exists for an advocate to acquire legal standing by assuming a formal role such as that of a guardian or adoptive parent, in certain situations. Of course, it is not necessary, possible, or even desirable for the majority of citizen advocacy relationships to attain a formal status. For example, if legal recognition is unduly accorded to a citizen advocacy relationship, the (unnecessary) formality of the advocate’s role will, at the very least, image the protege as being less competent than he/she really is. (Observers are apt to conclude that the person’s incapacity -- and therefore comparatively greater need for protection, supervision, etc. -- has necessitated the contrivance of a legally authorised response.)
Nonetheless, in other instances, it may be patently necessary -- even absolutely crucial -- for an advocate’s role to achieve legal standing in order to effectively protect the interests of his/her protege. For example, the assumption of the role of a guardian can give an advocate indisputably recognised authority to make decisions for a person with decision-making difficulties who may be targeted by, and vulnerable to, predatory parties.
As mentioned above, most citizen advocacy relationships will not and need not be sanctioned by the law. As such, informal citizen advocacy relationships are analogous to culturally typical associations formed in the larger society. On the one hand, the informality of a citizen advocacy relationship can invite the possibility (as alluded to previously) that the status of the advocate’s role will be challenged by others who may have a vested interest in declaring the advocate to be persona non grata to the protege. But an advocate who has a demonstrable commitment to his/her protege will be less vulnerable to accusations such as those which anathematise the advocate as an "undesirable presence" or "meddler." When a citizen advocate’s presence and actions exude an unequivocal commitment to his/her protege, it could be said that the advocate has earned moral or social standing. Dr Wolf Wolfensberger (the founder of Citizen Advocacy) has observed that standing of this kind is likely to grow with the advocate’s (i) duration of involvement, and (ii) depth of involvement, with the protege.
(i) Obviously, an advocate’s involvement with, and representation of, his protege over a sustained period -- perhaps many years -- will fortify the credibility of the advocate, especially given the reality that such an ongoing presence is typically uncommon in the ever-changing relationship world of most people with disabilities.
(ii) Additionally, the depth and intensity of an advocate’s engagement, in contrast to that which is perfunctory or token in nature, can also confer standing to the advocate. A corollary to the foregoing is that a citizen advocate who has a long-term association with his/her protege may nonetheless have low standing, if the nature of his/her engagement remains at a superficial level -- perhaps because it is characterised by infrequent contact with the protege, and/or a reluctance to pursue advocacy goals for the person which place a demand on the advocate. On the other hand, it may be possible for an advocate to increasingly gain standing, despite being in the role for a relatively brief period of time, if the advocacy is conducted with depth, intensity, and in a state of solidarity with the protege. Ultimately, then, an advocate’s standing will correspondingly increase with a "track record" of close and conscientious involvement.
Two recent vignettes from our Citizen Advocacy programme exemplify the importance of the standing of advocates.
One citizen advocate who was eager to participate in any case conferences for his protege, recently received an invitation from his protege’s accommodation service, even before he had indicated to the service his preparedness to attend. The invitation from the service-providing agency noted that the advocate was a "significant person" in his protege’s life.
Another advocate, who is matched with a frail elderly man who lives in a nursing home, was anxious to learn about the type, level of dosage, and consequent implications of the medication administered to his protege. After receiving evasive responses from the nursing home staff to his enquiries about the medication, the advocate made an appointment with the doctor of the service. At the meeting, the advocate simply stated to the doctor that he (the advocate) was a concerned person who had "been around long enough," and was therefore entitled to access to the requested information. The doctor agreed, and the advocate arranged to regularly meet with the doctor to discuss his protege’s medication and other health-related matters.
No doubt, many more dramatic stories can be told which underline the centrality of one’s standing in the conduct of advocacy. A common theme surely would be that the advocate who is seen to be consistently standing by his/her protege will acquire the stature so crucial to effective representation of the person’s interests. In that sense, it might be suggested that an advocate could gain standing, by -- so to speak -- standing by his/her protege.