Published in Inroads, the newsletter of Citizen Advocacy Eastern Suburbs, Issue 10 (May, 2000)
These are located on the Citizen Advocacy Network website,
in the section on articles and policy documents.
What we have to learn to do, we learn by doing. -- Aristotle (384 - 322 BC), Greek philosopher, Nicomachean Ethics, Book Two
A question commonly asked of people involved in a Citizen Advocacy programme is: what sort of training, if any, do advocates receive for and in their role? Mostly, it is a genuine query from those who, on first hearing of Citizen Advocacy, are interested to learn more about the practical aspects of an advocate’s role. Occasionally, however, the question may be framed -- ostensibly as information-seeking -- by some (e.g., human service workers who have had prior exposure to, but do not understand or like, Citizen Advocacy) simply to invoke the issue of technical training, in an effort to undermine the legitimacy of "unqualified" citizens acting as advocates to people with disabilities.
It is, of course, true that advocates are not required to undertake any technical or clinical training (e.g., learning about the cause, "treatment," prognosis, and so on, of impairments) by the Citizen Advocacy office -- for clear reasons. Thus, in explaining why the Citizen Advocacy office consciously chooses not to train advocates, it is important to communicate the very essence of Citizen Advocacy, the role and responses of advocates (as opposed to those of paid staff of disability services, for instance), and the implications of training. Reviewed below are some rationales as to why it is unnecessary, and even undesirable, for citizen advocates to receive training in order to embark on an advocacy role on behalf of people with disabilities.
The absence of training for advocates must be understood in the context of some assumptions which are central to the premise of Citizen Advocacy. Specifically, these assumptions pertain to the nature and efficacy of the responses of advocates, and the facilitative role of the Citizen Advocacy office, vis-a-vis the needs of people with disabilities.
1. Citizen advocates have pre-existing skills to directly respond to, or facilitate the address of, the needs of people with disabilities.
A core belief in Citizen Advocacy is that there are suitable citizens with pre-existing skills who can effectively assume a range of advocacy roles for people with disabilities. Sometimes, a citizen advocate will directly respond to his/her protege’s needs, such as being a friend or mentor. In other instances, given the representational nature of many citizen advocacy roles, the advocate’s efforts may be aimed at a third party who is in a position to directly effect a desired outcome for the protege; e.g., advocating against the relevant staff of a disability agency, to prevent or stop abuse inflicted on the protege, or to secure a service needed by, but hitherto withheld from, the person. Regardless of whether the citizen advocate directly responds to his/her protege’s needs, or is instrumental in addressing those needs via other parties, what is noteworthy is that the advocate’s actions are similar to, and typical of, the kinds of responses of competent citizens utilising already-held capabilities in everyday functioning in the larger society.
Nonetheless, two important qualifications must be stated in regard to the competencies and corresponding roles of citizen advocates. (a) The belief in the capacity of ordinary citizens does not imply that everyone will have the necessary attributes, disposition, and so on, to assume effective advocacy roles. Consequently, the Citizen Advocacy office must be discerning, rather than indiscriminate, in order to recruit suitable and competent advocates. (b) On the other hand, the pre-existing competencies of the advocate may be of limited practical value, unless these specific skills are relevant to addressing the needs of the protege, a matching function of the Citizen Advocacy office, as elaborated below.
2. The Citizen Advocacy office will strive to arrange suitable matches in which there is a good "fit" between the particular needs of the protege and the identified skills of the advocate.
A second assumption, which militates against the need for training citizens to function as effective advocates, is that the Citizen Advocacy office will endeavour to arrange a suitable protege/advocate match. The very word "match" suggests that there should be systematic thinking and planning in bringing people together in a way which will, first and foremost, be beneficial to the protege. In practical terms, the goal of the Citizen Advocacy office must be to facilitate the formation of a relationship in which there is a good "fit" between the identity, needs and interests of the protege and the identity, skills and resources of the citizen advocate, so that the advocate can be enabled to assume an advocacy role which is most responsive to the important needs of the protege. For example, if a protege’s primary need is for spokesmanship, it will be imperative for the Citizen Advocacy office to identify, recruit and match with the protege, an advocate with the relevant identity -- someone who has spokesmanship-related skills and a positive social image -- for effective representation of the person. On the other hand, given the above needs-scenario, it makes little sense to recruit a citizen advocate who is unwilling and/or unable to provide spokesmanship, even if the advocate is likely to be successful in responding to other relatively trivial needs of the protege.
3. The Citizen Advocacy office will provide support, in a variety of ways, to advocates.
It is also recognised that, in order to sustain and potentialise their advocacy engagement, even suitably-matched advocates are likely to need various forms of non-intrusive support (rather than mandatory technically-oriented training) from the Citizen Advocacy office. Another assumption, then, is that the Citizen Advocacy office will provide appropriate and proportionate support to advocates in the course of their match. Typically, before commencing their advocacy, all advocates receive orientation to the concept of Citizen Advocacy, the range of roles which advocates can potentially play, the specific advocacy role which they have been asked to assume in response to the particular needs of a protege, and the nature of support they can expect from the Citizen Advocacy office. Orientation is thus intended to prepare -- instead of "skill-up" -- citizen advocates for their role, laying the foundation for hopefully enduring and effective protege/ advocate relationships.
Moreover, once the match is established, the Citizen Advocacy office maintains regular contact with advocates, which provides the opportunity to readily identify, and respond to, the need for specific forms of support. Support to advocates may be moral or practical (e.g., encouragement or reassurance in the face of setbacks; discussion of, or guidance in pursuing, options, strategies; provision of, or suggestions in accessing, information, resources; etc.). A particular form of support is linkage to advocate associates with relevant backgrounds, recruited by the Citizen Advocacy office, who voluntarily advise advocates on technical matters pertaining to their advocacy relationship (e.g., offering informed advice on the law, medicine, various clinical services, guardianship and administration). Access to advocate associates -- whose experience, knowledge and skills constitute a reservoir of useful information -- easily refutes the contention that, particularly in regard to issues which have a technical dimension, citizen advocates will be "out of their depth." As well, citizen advocates are encouraged -- but not obliged -- to attend periodic information sessions, arranged by the Citizen Advocacy office, the themes of which are intended to raise advocates’ level of knowledge about matters which can, or do, affect their proteges.
Whereas the foregoing section delineated some reasons why it is unnecessary to train advocates, it is equally important to emphasise that mandatory training is also undesirable, since it is antithetical to the character of Citizen Advocacy. After all, Citizen Advocacy is about citizens providing advocacy, and a training requirement -- it is argued below -- will have implications for the identity and actions of people recruited to act as advocates.
1. Training can denaturalise the ordinary responses of citizen advocates.
As noted above, citizen advocates respond to the needs of their proteges in ways which are natural and typical, rather than contrived or conditioned. Instinctively, an advocate’s actions are informed by the particular needs or situation of his/her protege. For example, an advocate may be a friend to a person who is lonely and friendless; or act as a protector to someone who is vulnerable to, or a victim of, abuse.
The provision of technical training, in contrast, courts the danger of "professionalising" the role of citizen advocates and transforming their identity to that of quasi-human service staff. In the process, ordinary ways of responding are denaturalised. The nett result will clearly be detrimental to people with disabilities who are matched with advocates, since many of them -- due to a lack of natural relationships in their life -- have been denied the opportunity to relate to others, or have their fundamental needs addressed, in typical ways. Furthermore, given the nature of some basic human needs, such needs can only be addressed by the sorts of ordinary responses which are intrinsic to protege/advocate relationships. For instance, if a person is unloved, and feels unloved, then providing the person with counselling (which maybe appropriate in other contexts) can only serve as a poor substitute for the "real thing" -- genuine care and love, coming from one person to another.
2. Training can serve as a means of prescribing or controlling the actions of citizen advocates.
One of the major strengths of Citizen Advocacy is the independence of representation provided by advocates to their proteges. As "free-agent" citizens unencumbered by significant conflicts of interest, advocates are able to act independently of other parties in representing their proteges. The centrality of advocate independence is recognised and reinforced by the Citizen Advocacy office, which seeks to support, but not control, protege/advocate relationships.
If advocates are obliged to undergo training, it is conceivable that the content of the training -- whether intended or not -- can serve to control their actions. For example, training which purports to impart technical knowledge may be highly prescriptive, and the need for compliance with a list of dogmatic "dos" and "don'ts" can discourage or displace common sense, initiative, and flexibility -- the kinds of qualities which are crucial to person-centred, sincerely-based, informal ways of responding. Training can hence straitjacket the actions of advocates into controlled responses, undermining their ability to provide truly independent representation for their proteges.
3. A training requirement can mystify the advocacy engagement in the eyes of others.
Citizen Advocacy is a community-based helping form which invites, facilitates, and celebrates the involvement of ordinary citizens in the lives of people with disabilities. Citizen Advocacy offers an unrivalled opportunity for people from all segments of the community to constructively apply their repertoire of natural skills in a personal, direct, tangible way to achieve a better life for their neighbours in need. The challenge for the Citizen Advocacy office is to convince the community -- which is increasingly being led to believe that the needs of people who are "different" can only be met by formal, professional services -- that most ordinary citizens have the capacity to make a significant contribution to the well-being of people with disabilities.
A training requirement, on the other hand, can mystify the advocacy engagement, inviting the perception that there is something esoteric about the needs of people with disabilities which invariably necessitate trained responses. And, of course, the thicker the veil of mystique enshrouding the helping process, the more likely it is that the community will defer to the formal service system, ascribing omniscience and infallibility to service-providers ("they have special skills and must know best"). In consequence, interested citizens may reluctantly disqualify themselves from personal advocacy involvements with people with disabilities.
4. A training requirement can act as a disincentive to involvement for some suitable citizens.
There may also be some citizens who could function as suitable advocates, but for whom a training requirement might act as a disincentive to becoming involved. For example, some people who are eager to commit themselves to forming alliances with people with disabilities may, nonetheless, be philosophically opposed to, or simply cannot see the need for, training. For others, the duration of the training -- if it is a protracted process -- can be a deterrent. Whatever the reasons, training can sufficiently dissuade some competent people from pursuing an advocacy commitment.
It is an unfortunate reality that many aspects of the philosophy and practice of Citizen Advocacy are poorly understood or deliberately misrepresented. Mindful of the potential for misinterpretation, in the context of the theme of this article, it may be useful to draw attention to what has not been stated about training.
(a) Nowhere has it been suggested that training, per se, is a bad thing; indeed, it is acknowledged that clinical or technical competence, acquired through some level of training, is essential in the provision of many human services and some (more formal) types of advocacy for people with disabilities.(b) Equally, it has not been claimed that all training should be regarded as anathema to the functioning of citizen advocates. As mentioned previously, advocates may benefit from -- rather than strictly need -- some types of training, but it is emphasised that the assumption of advocacy roles is not contingent on receipt of training.
(c) The absence of a formal training culture in Citizen Advocacy does not imply that advocates are impervious to learning in other ways. On the contrary, through long-term commitments, citizen advocates continue to learn about, and from, their proteges -- often acquiring a deep knowledge about the identity and needs of the persons with whom they are matched. As well, the experience gained by advocates from the "hands-on" involvement is an indispensable resource which informs their ongoing advocacy.
It should, therefore, be abundantly clear that the kernel of the argument against the provision of training is that it incompatible with, and even destructive of, the identity of Citizen Advocacy: conscientious and competent citizens relating to, and advocating for, people with disabilities in ways which are common and familiar in the culture. Anyone who fails to see the validity of such a response has failed to discern the essence of Citizen Advocacy.