What will IMHA Mean?

[Caroline McAleese]

Independent Mental Health Advocacy (IMHA) is part of the Mental Health Act 2007. What will this mean for the rest of the advocacy sector? What will the benefits be? What might the pitfalls be?

[Jimbo]

I suppose it can only be a good thing for advocacy to be more recognised. Its a similar situation to IMCA though - it could lead to "professionalisation" and lose some of the grassroots values that advocacy clings on to.

[asbo]

I am new to advocacy, during the past year the buffezone has come up against many barriers and even prejudice. With a national qualification (soon to happen ,accredited), the recognition as a professional cannot be ignored. As long as my organisation sticks within it's boundaries and charter, it's independence will not be nullified .That is only my own observations so far. But without this form of recognition, it will be a harder struggle for the people that we support.[/quote]

[Georgie]

Hi
it would seem that if 'advocacy' is going to be part of legislation; the advocates have to have knowledge of and understanding of - that legislation. Whether this means 'professionalisation', I'm not sure.
Maybe its more a case of 'specialism'?
If some advocacy services become specialists, it could leave room for the grassroots advocacy Mickey mentions to flourish because of its unique values? Perhaps the very fact that you wouldn't use an IMCA or IMHA for dealing with a benefit issue or a problem with the local Community Mental Health Teams - means that the advocacy services that do deal with those kinds of issue .... will remain strong and very necessary?

[asbo]

I agree with what Georgie mentions, though i feel that if you become over qualified, legally,or medically with the knowledge it may distort our own perceptions of what their issues are and actually dull our own empathy towards their issues. The bufferzone owns the disability rights handbook, we treat it as a bible, but if the issues are deeper rooted legally, then we turn to a professional,ie solicitor. A basic grounding and understanding means you stay with a open mind. Too much knowledge would cloud the effectiveness of advocacy. Whatever outcome arrives in this area, the client and vulnerable must always be considered on how it may effect them. I am all for learning and it is a good thing, but how deep does this knowledge need to be as a professional. Ilearn everyday and it's not by sitting in a classroom, I attend workshops and other forms of learning and that in itself has helped forge the way for our organisation.

[Pault]

Am i right in thinking that advocacy is only there for for "detained patients" only? Then we need to think also about the funding needs/ advocacy, for those who are not detained.
Im not worried about professionalisation - I want a robust,powerful,effective service that can effectively challenge services. Im tired of tokenistic advocacy. ( I think Ive been in this too long!!).

[Anthony Davis]

These will be the people entitled to the services of an independent mental health advocate - it does not include the emergency sectioning provisions (where 2 medical opinions are not available), the holding powers, or those who are in a place of safety under section 136.

The Secretary of State has power to make Regulations under the Act - there are no drafts available on the Department of Health web-site, but there is power under the Act:

to specify how advocates are appointed

to make conditions subject to which they can act

to say in which circumstances they can act

and to set out if appointments need approval

[Jimbo]

I think these can only be a good thing. As Georgie says, it does help seperate the grassroots, user-led advocacy from IMHA and IMCA, and helps us remember our true values. I think it can only remind us of the importance of independent advocacy, and the value of many different models. I don't think there are any right or wrong approaches, just right or wrong approaches for different people.

[Advocacy Coordinator]

Unlike IMCA and ICAS the IMHA Service for Adult Mental Health Advocacy could have a serious impact on advocacy provision. As I understand it the money will probably be given to the PCT's to alocate to the IMHA Service for their area. As was mentioned earlier it will be for people under the mental health act and people who are going to be assessed to be sectioned under the mental health act, this will include Community Treatment Orders.

The concern is that it is not yet known if the government will go for the option of having regional Advocacy providers as is the case for IMCA and ICAS. If they go with the regional provider, then if the local PCT is providing funding for local advocay services then they could decide to give extra funding to the IMHA Service to provide the non mental health act issues, and stop the funding of the local advocacy services.

Having said all that I feel that Advocacy is going in the right direction, and look forward to a national qualification but still see the need for local advocacy services who know their areas, and for an alternative option for advocates who maybe don't want to go down the quaification route to still provide advocacy, although they would not have the same powers as a IMHA, but a point ot remember is that even if not an IMHA that does not stop you advocating for anyone under a section of the mental health act it just means that you cannot have the same access to files and personnel.

My first post and I can promise that my other will not be as long

Happy New Year to you all

John

[Huw]

IMHA is only just staring here and i am already concerned...for myself...who advocates for the advocates who have been essentially 'doing the job' for years? Don't get me wrong i am all for a 'professional' approach but this service is more about 'statutorisation' than about professionalism i think. I can see myself and many others like me in similar organisations being ostracised and then becoming defunct. I have scrutinised the commissioning protocols etc for IMHA and they do not make for pleasurable reading for we 'unqualified' advocates. I feel the strategies for service provision are contradictory at the very least and whilst it is written that the IMHA service is not meant to become a 'gold standard' or to replace existing services but to 'compliment them i take serious issue with that not out of fear but out of concern. The IMHA provision document states that the remit is 'narrow' however i would argue that it is anything but that when read in totality. There is, as we all know, a finite amount of monies for provision of any services, moreso for charitable services, someone has to lose out. I am beginning to think that for some advocacy work ignorance may be bliss in that we can challenge from a basic needs/basic human rights level and the more we become aware of the 'requirements' under law the less vociferous we may become. Power to the people, maybe, but which people really? Perhaps we should consider the fact that 'people power' has and does change the law which has not always been seen to be fair or just. Doubtless readers will know of outdated laws that still exist today but have no real validity in the present day. The law tends to be very black & white but advocacy is always very colourful. There is no panacea that will cure all ills in advocacy but is that what is trying (albeit in stages) to be achieved and will it ultimately fail? Will advocacy become no more than a governmental lap dog as constrained (rather than empowering) as the services/people we can often find ourselves up against with our clients? Is freedom to challenge being eroded and controlled rather than being opened up? As an advocate i am skeptical rather than convinced.

[Georgie]

I work with clients detained under the Mental Health Act and my organisation is hopeful of getting the IMHA contract (Independent Mental Health Advocate). At the moment I deal with a wide range of issues including complaints which may involve unit (medium secure forensic unit) or Trust policies. These issues are not covered by the IMHA role. We are hopeful that we can continue to deal with these issues alongside of IMHA work. Has any advocacy organisation agreed anything yet with commissioners as to the advocacy role within the forensic system?

[Huw]

Hi Georgie,
Well i guess your comment on what you can/can't deal with just goes to show how fragmented advocacy can be.
However, where i work, we deal with absolutely anything that affects our clients care, status, human rights etc. We have been attending MHRT's for years without need of an IMHA and getting just as much done in the process, we have the knowledge and haven't generally needed the law other than the use of a solicitor which has not changed.
In regard to any policies of any service/organisation our involvement is indirect i.e. do they need looking at because of a particular clients' situation so then yes, we would question the validity or sense of said policy.
We have an advocate who works in a forensic unit within a hospital also, she is not an IMHA. On a company basis i don't believe we have found an IMHA necessary.
Whereas i am aware IMHA's have statutory rights and obligations and can 'demand' certain information whereas we 'request' such if our requests are reasonable on behalf of our clients i have not, in 4 years, known them denied and on the rare occasion i have heard of requests being denied either a solicitor has been involved or approached for advice/info on the legal status of the request etc or we have shown considerable determination and had what was needed anyway eventually. It simply does not pay services to withold what is being asked for when there is valid reason.
Apologies to all IMHA's but i remain skeptical other than seeing them in their role as an advocate generally.
People generally know what is right and what is wrong or questionable and actually don't need the law to tell them this because it is pretty much instinctive. The only people who, in my experience, don't pay heed to other's basic rights and the rightful questioning of a service they may/may not provide need strict guidance under the law and thankfully i have met very few. Those i have come across have seen sense and reasonableness when it is profferred. We don't need more 'law' we need people to reason and people who can reason and that will show what a good advocate is.