Forth Valley Annual Report
2012/13
Contents
Page
Forth Valley Advocacy
Company details
1
21 Years Old
2
Our Eligibility Criteria
2-3
Our Vision & Mission
3
Directors Report
4
Our funding
5
Statistics for people accessing our service
6-8
Manager’s Report
9-10
Senior Advocacy Worker’s Report
11
Advocacy Case Studies
12-20
Accounts
21 onwards
Forth Valley Advocacy
A Company Limited by Guarantee
Scottish Registered Charity
2012/13
Board of Directors
Margaret Cheyne
David Paterson
Bob Hoolachan
Ravind Busgeeth
Bill Bruce
David Irvine
Jennifer Davies
Chair
Vice-Chair
Treasurer
- resigned 30/11/12
Company Secretary
Wendy Sharp
Registered office
1 The Bungalows
Stirling Road
LARBERT FK5 4SZ
Manager
Wendy Sharp
Senior Advocacy Worker
Martine Turner
Advocacy Workers
Marion Robinson
Loretta Murray
Patricia McClay
Jennifer Morgan
David Harris
Caroline Kingston – commenced 31/05/12
Volunteer Coordinator
Margo Campbell – resigned11/01/13
Harriet Fishley – commenced 14/01/13
Company number
251723
Administrator
Fiona Moore
Charity number
SCO34510
Web Address:
www.forthvalleyadvocacy.com
Incorporation date
25 June 2003
Business address
1 The Bungalows
Stirling Road
LARBERT FK5 4SZ
Independent Examiners
Wylie & Bisset
168 Bath Street
Glasgow G2 4TP
Bankers
The Royal Bank of Scotland plc.
2 Newmarket
Centre
FALKIRK FK1 1JX
“Getting your voice heard”
1
Forth Valley Advocacy Service
21 Years Old
Forth Valley Advocacy (FVA) celebrated its 21st Birthday in 2013 having seen many
changes over the years. Initially a part of the NHS based in Bellsdyke Hospital it
became an independent service in 2003 with its own Board of Directors and
registered as a company limited by guarantee with charitable status.
Independence led to FVA delivering services on behalf of the three local authorities
and the NHS operating under Service Level Agreements that ‘paid for’ individual
worker(s) for each area.
2011 saw further changes as the Public Sector made the joint decision to publically
tender for Independent Advocacy services across Forth Valley.
In March 2012, after a concerted effort by board members, staff and clients, we
received notification that we had won the tender contract to deliver Independent
Advocacy across Forth Valley; funding is currently for two years with the possibility
of further funding for up to two additional years.
Throughout that past 21 years FVA staff and board have remained committed to
ensuring we deliver a high quality, transparent service that is accountable to clients
and funders alike. The fact that we have survived 21 years, particularly with the
recent economic climate, is testament to the fact that we are achieving this.
Our Eligibility Criteria
We offer short-term, issues based, professional independent advocacy support to
people over 16 who have:
• A learning disability
• A mental health problem
• An acquired brain injury
• Dementia
And also with people who are:
• Over 65 years of age
• Vulnerable and deemed at risk
• Under 16 years of age subject to action under the Mental Health Act
“Getting your voice heard”
2
Our outcomes focused service is available for any person who meets our criteria and
requires support with a specific issue or concern related to health, social care or the
following legislation:
> Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000
> Mental Health (Care &Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003
> Adult Support & Protection (Scotland) Act 2007
> The Children’s Hearing (Scotland) Act 2011
Importantly, a person does not need to be detained under mental health legislation
to access our service.
Our Vision & Mission
Vision
Shifting the balance of power
Mission
To PROMOTE the rights, freedoms and dignity of vulnerable people, to SUPPORT
people to have their say and to DEFEND disadvantaged people from abuse and
exploitation.
“Getting your voice heard”
3
Directors Report for the year ending 31 March 2013
I am pleased to present this year’s report on behalf of the Board of Directors for
Forth Valley Advocacy. This again was a busy year as the facts within this report will
show.
Our service continues to develop to meet the ongoing needs of our client groups.
We are confident the advocacy service is delivered to a high standard overseen by
our Manager Wendy Sharp and Martine Turner our Senior Advocacy Worker. Staff
commitment guarantees a continually developing service as we aim to constantly
improve on the quality and standard of our organisation.
Over the year we have complimented our service with the addition of a robust
group of volunteer advocates and are grateful for their commitment and
contribution.
Our Directors have been very active over the year in the many aspects of
governance and planning of the service on a day to day and longer term strategic
planning basis. I am grateful for the ongoing support by Board members to our
advocacy service and myself over the year which, in many ways, has been
challenging.
As in previous years our funders are Forth Valley NHS, Falkirk, Stirling and
Clackmannan Councils. In our present commercial climate we are all aware of the
need to ensure a value for money service and we strive to maintain this.
In conclusion I wish to thank the directors, the staff and all our funders who have
been so supportive over the past year and I am sure will give ongoing support to our
future Advocacy Service.
Please enjoy the details of this report which gives clear evidence of our service
within Forth Valley.
Margaret Cheyne
CHAIRPERSON
“Getting your voice heard”
4
Our funding
Forth Valley Advocacy won the public contract for a jointly commissioned
Independent Advocacy service across Forth Valley.
The service is commissioned from a pooled budget by Clackmannanshire Council,
Falkirk Council, Stirling Council and NHS Forth Valley.
Forth Valley Advocacy would also like to thank all our supporters who have provided
valuable information and training to the team as a whole.
“Getting your voice heard”
5
Stats for people accessing our service
In April 2012 Forth Valley Advocacy (FVA) commissioned EvolutionCS to create a
Case Management System that would allow the service to capture a vast amount of
statistical data about the people accessing our service. Amongst other things, this
includes the number of hours delivered, the clients outcomes, the referring
agency/area, age, client group and much more.
The CMS became live in October 2012. For the first seven months of the year we
relied upon our old method for capturing the hours delivered, which means we
certainly delivered more hours than we accounted for.
As the commissioners considered the first three months of the contract as ‘start-up
time’, they anticipated the advocacy hours delivered to be closer to 6000 than 8,000
for year one.
For the first time we and commissioners are now getting excellent and consistent
statistics about the people who access independent advocacy across Forth Valley.
In total Forth Valley Advocacy delivered 6670 hours of advocacy and supported 704
people across Forth Valley.
Client numbers
“Getting your voice heard”
6
Hours delivered
Adult Support And Protection
1014.5
19.25
49.75
346.5
599
Falkirk
“Getting your voice heard”
Stirling
Clacks
NHS
7
“Getting your voice heard”
8
Manager’s Report for the year ending 31 March 2013
April 2012 saw Forth Valley Advocacy (FVA) commence delivery of our newly
secured contract to deliver Independent Advocacy across Forth Valley.
Our previous contract ended on 31st March and this new one started on 1st April
2013, extending the availability of independent advocacy services to a wider client
group.
Naturally this then meant that we had to consider TUPE for the outgoing service
staff. After discussions and consultations with all, the staff decided to remain where
they were which then meant we had to recruit to fill posts.
In addition to recruiting new staff and delivering advocacy, the first few months
were, understandably, spent addressing concerns, allaying fears and raising
awareness of the new eligibility criteria.
Remarkably, despite some significant changes, we have not received one complaint
during this first year of the new contract.
Throughout the year we have worked in close partnership with commissioners from
across all three local authorities and the NHS, overseen by the Officers Monitoring &
Evaluation Group for Advocacy (OMEGA). There were frequent meetings to ensure
the service was on track and clearly promoted to senior managers and service users.
We welcome the input and involvement of the OMEGA as its close monitoring
validates our work ensuring we are fully transparent and accountable; something we
always strive towards.
We are also working within our new three-tier advocacy delivery model that we
designed specifically for this contract. This has allowed us to clearly identify who
should be allocated to paid and unpaid advocates ensuring we utilise our volunteers
and staff appropriately.
As part of our three-tier model, Forth Valley Advocacy established the new core
position of Volunteer Coordinator and we could not be happier with the quality of
our volunteer advocates. They have shown great skill, enthusiasm and commitment
and are invaluable in helping us extend our service to those not necessarily covered
by the eligibility criteria.
This has been a year of great change and improvement within Forth Valley Advocacy
and we introduced new ways for delivering our service as well as our new bespoke
Case Management System which we introduced in October 2012. As we are now
“Getting your voice heard”
9
paid for each quarter hour of advocacy delivered this information is vital to the
survival of our service.
We are collecting invaluable information that will, over the coming years allow us to
further tweak and improve our service and how we deliver advocacy.
All of this would not be possible without the absolute commitment, passion and
willingness of staff, directors and volunteers. Far from being phased by all the
changes, they have fully embraced them and continue to look at areas for
improvement.
As a whole I can honestly say that this is the best team imaginable to take the
contract forward. It has been a steep learning curve at times but staff and
volunteers have outdone themselves rising to challenges with a positive ‘can do’
attitude.
Wendy Sharp
MANAGER
“Getting your voice heard”
10
Senior Advocacy Worker’s Report for the year ending 31 March 2013
The start of the new contract saw many changes and challenges for Advocacy as we
widened our client group and worked with a change of eligibility criteria.
Our new Case Management System (CMS) has made the recording of notes and
stats so much clearer and accurate for staff. This system was embraced by staff and
by the end of the year everyone was of the opinion “how did we manage without
it?”
The new contract came with a completely alien way of funding as payment was
based upon the number of advocacy hours delivered. The team found this a
challenge and were concerned about this, particularly with worry over delivering
“enough hours”.
However, it soon became apparent that all they needed to do was record
information accurately into the CMS and, with the referrals continuing to pour in
and caseloads remaining high; the hours took care of themselves.
The weekly allocation meeting gives the staff an opportunity to share information
and discuss with their colleagues any issues they feel they need support / guidance
with. For me it’s about trying to ensure referrals are prioritised and allocated within
the appropriate time scale yet ensuring staff still run with manageable caseloads;
something that, at times, is quite a challenge.
I have seen my role change over the past year as I stepped in to cover for a member
of staff who became unwell, as per our new service delivery model. I have also
taken on the role of delivering advocacy to patients in Loch View as this was a new
location for us and I have greatly enjoyed getting to know the patients and staff. I
will continue to work there and love the warm caring environment that is evident.
Yet, despite the changes and challenges presented during the year I was getting
more positive feedback than I had ever before at staff’s monthly support and
supervision. Although we were busier than ever and the pressure was on, everyone
was very happy and the team was at its best to deliver the advocacy as per the
contract.
Martine Turner
SENIOR ADVOCACY WORKER
“Getting your voice heard”
11
Case studies
To follow are actual examples of client work undertaken across all areas covered by
Forth Valley Advocacy, produced with permission of those involved.
1. Basic profile data
a. Gender
Female
b. Age
50’s
c. Ethnicity
White
d. Client group Learning Disability
2. Length of time from identifying issue to outcome 13 months
3. The Issue
The client was referred due to Adult Support and Protection (ASP) concerns about
financial harm.
This was a difficult time for my client and I supported her at ASP meetings and
throughout the process itself. One of the actions arising from the ASP process was
that the local council took up appointeeship of my client’s benefits. This combined
with a lack of communication left my client feeling, “as though I have done
something wrong”.
The client found ASP meetings very nerve wracking and at the first meeting she was
made to wait for an hour before she was invited in to the discussion. At the
beginning of the process she was not sent reports in advance of the meetings so she
felt she did not know what was going to be discussed.
4. The Steps Taken to Address the Issue
I supported the client at ASP meetings and was able to put forward her views. Prior
to the third ASP meeting I contacted the chairperson on my client’s behalf. This was
to raise concerns about my client being made to wait an hour before she was invited
into the meeting. I also explained that my client did not feel ‘supported or
protected’ by the process but felt as though she had done something wrong. The
chairperson acknowledged this and said that my client would be invited in at the
start of the meeting.
After this, my client found the meeting a lot more bearable. The professionals
around the table reiterated to my client that she had done nothing wrong and that
they wanted to support her. I put forward my client’s views that she felt things had
improved and the people involved in financially exploiting her were no longer in her
life.
“Getting your voice heard”
12
On my client’s behalf I also raised the issue of appointeeship which was still
troubling my client as she felt “embarrassed to have to ask for what is rightfully
mine. I would like my money back; it is making me very nervous and distressed
that Social Work has control of it”. I pointed out that since appointeeship had been
sought, the social worker had not reviewed whether it still needed to be in place.
My client stated, “I don’t know why it was taken away in the first place as I was
good at looking after it.”
It was agreed by the professionals involved that the risks in terms of financial
exploitation were no longer present. However, my client’s social worker felt that
appointeeship was still necessary. I explained to my client outside of the meeting
that another option was to contact the DWP to ask them to review whether
appointeeship was still appropriate. My client stated that she would like me to do
that. Over the next few months I contacted the DWP through phone calls, letters
and email. Finally, I was contacted by a visiting officer to arrange a visit to see my
client.
5. The Outcome – the difference advocacy made
The outcome after a visiting officer had been to see my client was that her benefits
were returned to her. My client was extremely happy about this and thanked me
very much for the support I had given her. A couple of months later I contacted my
client to see how things were going. She said, “I am really happy and I am coping
well with having my money back”.
The ASP meetings were also brought to an end as it was felt that the risks had
dissipated. My client now had a support worker going in a few times a week which
has given her a lot more confidence. My client started attending a local social group
for people with learning disabilities. This increased involvement in the local
community meant my client was less socially isolated and less vulnerable to
exploitation by others.
6. The Challenges and how they were met
The challenges were trying to make my client feel more empowered by the ASP
process rather than feeling punished by it. By supporting my client at the meetings
and putting forward her views, my client felt more involved in the process.
The biggest challenge was trying to get social work to reconsider appointeeship. In
the end my client chose a different option and we contacted the DWP directly. It
took a while as there was no clear system in place to ask the DWP to review
appointeeship. However, after many calls and letters the DWP finally sent someone
out and my client’s benefits were returned to her.
“Getting your voice heard”
13
The social worker then called me to express her concern that my client would not be
able to manage. I reminded the social worker that my role is to advocate on behalf
of my client and not to make judgements about what is best for her.
7. Conclusion
My client now has full control over her finances and is managing her money well.
She is more confident and more involved with the local community and less socially
isolated.
1. Basic profile data
a. Gender
Female
b. Age
40s
c. Ethnicity
White
d. Client group Mental Health
2. Length of time from identifying issue to outcome 5 – 6 months
3. The Issue
Client was admitted to FVR on a s44 as her mental health (bipolar diagnosis) was
believed to have deteriorated. She unsuccessfully appealed a s44 and a CTO
application was made but subsequently withdrawn, and client was discharged from
hospital to IHTT. She has a young daughter who was placed in the care of her father;
client is separated from her partner.
Various unsubstantiated claims that before admission to hospital client had been
drinking, lost her temper in a public place with her daughter, and her child was
considered as not being properly supervised. Client recovered well on her discharge,
but Children and Families Social Work reluctant to give her unsupervised access to
her daughter. Client desperate to see her daughter returned to her care.
4. The Steps Taken to Address the Issue
Prepared client for and supported her at meetings with Social Work, including Core
Group Meetings.
5. The Outcome
Client felt very much alone, and that Social Workers were listening to her ex-partner
but not to her own views. She found Core Group Meetings particularly stressful and
felt only her advocacy worker was on her side.
6. The Challenges and how they were met
It was clear that client would require considerable support and encouragement
through the long, slow process towards getting unsupervised access to her
daughter. By helping her to remain calm when she was under stress and the scrutiny
“Getting your voice heard”
14
of Social Workers, client was able to demonstrate her restored mental health and
parenting ability. At the same time her ex-partner came across as increasingly
controlling towards client, and distrusting of services.
7. Conclusion
Client now has her daughter live with her 4 days and 3 nights a week. Whilst she
would like to have an extra night with her daughter, the compromise avoids the
need to go to court until her daughter is old enough to make up her own mind
about where she wants to live. Client has moved house, is in a new relationship and
returning to self-employment. Expressed thanks for all our help during a difficult
period.
1. Basic profile data
a. Gender
Female
b. Age
94
c. Ethnicity
White
d. Client group Older People
2. Length of time from identifying issue to outcome 5 months
3. The Issue
Very frail not been coping at home, was in hospital got out for 4 days and was put
on emergency respite looking for a full time care placement but client wanted to go
home. She was feeling very pressured by family to go into long term care and
needed help to get her voice heard.
Full capacity to make her own decisions. Update from March: Case under
investigation under Adult Support & Protection regarding physical harm to client.
4. The Steps Taken to Address the Issue

Visited with client

Discussed views and options

Client moved to alternative care placement of her choice
5. The Outcome
Client spoke of how she is pleased to be having her affairs in order
Client was supported to make decisions on future care placements. Client chose not
to return home, but go into care home for safety reasons. Supported to view
“Getting your voice heard”
15
alternative long term care placements. Client chose placement.
6. The Challenges and how they were met
Ensuring client fully understood risks she faced if she chose to return home.
7. Conclusion

Client very happy in long term care home, which was chosen by her.

Advocacy supported client to arrange solicitor to come to care home and have
personal affairs put in order.

Mid and final reviews have taken place and client now feels able to voice her
opinions in the care home should the need arise.
1. Basic profile data
a. Gender
Female
b. Age
34
c. Ethnicity
White
d. Client group Mental Health
2. Length of time from identifying issue to outcome 4 months
3. The Issue
Change of Social Worker- “She doesn’t listen to me, I cannot work with her.”
Children’s Hearing Panel- “I can’t keep my emotions under control. These people
judge me. “
4. The Steps Taken to Address the Issue
 Letter sent on behalf of client asking for a change of social worker.
 Met with client before any Hearing Panel and supported her during them.
5. The Outcome
New Social Worker- “My kid’s would have been taken off me if I still had her
(previous social worker).” The previous social worker was recommending that my
clients children be adopted permanently. The new social worker had a different
view on this.
Supported client through the Children’s Hearings process and went from the
children being in foster care to being back in my client’s full time care.- “I am now
just wanting to get on with my life with the boys. Finally we can move on from this,
“Getting your voice heard”
16
thank you for your support.”
6. The Challenges and how they were met
The first challenge I had to support my client with was a change of Social Worker as
the relationship had broken down beyond repair. After this was achieved I helped
the new Children and Families social worker to understand my client’s mental health
issues and the impact it has on her behaviours.
Supporting my client to understand decisions and gain trust in professionals was the
main challenge. Once she achieved this, she was able to work alongside the social
worker and concentrate on the best interest of the children and getting them home
again permanently.
7. Conclusion
Before advocacy input my client was unable to sit through an entire meeting about
her children in an appropriate manner. With advocacy support her understanding
and self-confidence grew and in return she was able to contribute to meetings and
accept praise where it was due. My client made it clear that without this support she
would not have managed this. Her new found self-empowerment, hardworking and
co-operation with professionals has allowed her to get her children back in her care
full time; a scenario unimaginable before advocacy support.
1. Basic profile
a. Gender
Female
b. Age
57
c. Ethnicity
White
d. Client group Learning Disability
2. Length of time from identifying issue to outcome 6 months
3. The Issue
Susan was referred to our service by the LD community team. They stated that they
had a duty of care to regularly review everyone they work with to ensure that their
needs are being met.
Recently a new supported accommodation placement had come up in a
neighbouring area and the LD team wondered whether or not this would be a more
suitable place for Susan to live as it was a much smaller unit.
Advocacy was asked to be involved to try and ascertain Susan’s wishes and views
regarding this.
“Getting your voice heard”
17
4. The Steps Taken to Address the Issue
I was aware upon referral that Susan had some communication needs so I made
contact with her key worker to try and gain some insight that might help me with
my first visit. I was informed that Susan did not talk but could make herself
understood by her hand gestures and by her facial expressions.
On my first visit a speech and language therapist was present trying to communicate
with talking mats but Susan would not engage with him or me. In fact when her key
worker asked if she would like to meet with us to try and explain my role and why I
was there she turned her back on both of us.
After a few more visits, it became clear that Susan would not be able to give me
instruction on whether she would like to move house or not. Therefore, my role
would be one of non-instructed advocacy adopting a safeguarding role following the
principles of the AWI Act and working within our non-instructed advocacy
procedures.
I visited Susan many times after this to carry out observations and to ascertain
whether a move to a new home would benefit her as she was unable to voice this
herself. Every time I visited her I observed her to be very relaxed. She loved to throw
her shoes off and lie along the settee watching telly or listening to her music.
Another favourite was sitting in her well maintained garden.
On one unannounced visit she was getting pampered in the living room by a
therapist giving her aromatherapy treatments. I spoke to staff who stated that she
loved visiting her local shop on a daily basis; she also did cookery and crafts and
really enjoyed her weekly bus trip. She also enjoyed her weekly visit to her church
which was just next door.
As part of our non-instructed advocacy procedures I contacted Susan’s brother who
stated that he was very worried as he felt a move for his sister would ‘just be
terrible’. He stated that he felt it might have benefited her when she was younger
but not now as her life was good and that she had made many good friends where
she was and although the new accommodation was smaller his sister actually
enjoyed the buzz of where she was. Staff also stated that they were concerned as
Susan had taken a long time to settle in her placement and were worried a new
placement may unsettle her.
All my observations were recorded at different times and in different situations and
settings. As the visits went on, Susan became more comfortable with me being
there and although she could not instruct me, my role was to uphold her rights and I
“Getting your voice heard”
18
genuinely believed that if Susan where able to express her wishes she would choose
to remain where she was.
5. The Outcome – the difference advocacy made– use quotes
At a meeting held regarding whether or not Susan should move to the new
placement, her social worker took on board all my observations and comments. I
explained that I had used non instructed advocacy to come to the conclusion that
Susan had a really good life where she was.
Every time I visited her she appeared very comfortable and at home. Staff had also
informed me that it had taken a long time for Susan to settle in when she first
arrived there and I felt it would be unfair for her to have to do this again if she
moved. At every visit staff interacted appropriately with Susan and I observed it was
a relaxing atmosphere for Susan to live in. The social worker took on board my
observations and Susan was allowed to remain where she was.
6. The Challenges and how they were met
The social worker took on board everything I had to say but perhaps without the
evidence from my formally recorded non instructed advocacy observations it might
have had a different outcome.
7. Conclusion
Susan continues to live happily in her supported accommodation with staff aware
that, if she needs advocacy in the future, they should not hesitate to contact our
service.
1. Basic profile data
a. Gender
Male
b. Age
85
c. Ethnicity
British White
d. Client group Older People (dementia)
2. Length of time from identifying issue to outcome August 2012 – January 2013
3. The Issue
Mr D had come into emergency respite care following two failed discharges at home
where his wife had struggled to cope with his increasing frailty and advanced
dementia. Mrs D was not British and the main issue was in relation NOT to his
incapacity, but in her understanding – her English was excellent but the cultural
differences caused a gap in understanding (e.g. “that is not how we do things in my
country”) and there was also a breakdown in the relationship with social and
medical services. Furthermore, due to their religious beliefs the couple had strong
views in relation to medical interventions.
“Getting your voice heard”
19
The Council were looking at Guardianship and asked for Advocacy to be involved.
This was a ‘safeguarding’ role due to the level of Mr D’s dementia and involved
meeting the client, his wife and also liaising with the MHO and social work
department.
4. The Steps Taken to Address the Issue
When the case was allocated, I was chosen partly due to the fact that I am fluent in
Mrs D’s mother tongue. This helped establish a rapport and we were able to build
up a trusting relationship, particularly once she could see that advocacy was on their
“side” and that she could use me to help explain some of the terminology and
jargon which was being used.
We met together on many occasions (client, wife and myself) and worked with staff
in the Care Home to help Mrs D understand her husband’s illness and how the care
plan could be written to optimise her husband’s quality of life in the time which
remained for him. She agreed to personalise his room with reminders from home
and she listened to other advice from professionals working in the field of dementia.
It was hard for her after almost 60 years of marriage, to hand her husband’s care to
others.
5. The Outcome – the difference advocacy made
A compromise was reached regarding the Guardianship and a joint application was
made so that Mrs D continued to feel involved in decision-making regarding her
husband’s care. Advocacy was the link that kept everyone communicating and
helped Mrs D feel she had not lost all control in a very difficult situation.
6. The Challenges and how they were met
The main challenge was Mrs D’s resistance to outside help and this was due to the
cultural barriers. Relationship-building led to working in partnership as she came to
see that the professionals were trying to help them both, not trying to take her
husband away from her.
7. Conclusion
The client settled well and his wife felt supported, involved and listened to.
“Getting your voice heard”
20