A lack of solid evidence on the impact of advocacy could make it vulnerable to funding cuts, a new report has warned.
There was insufficient reliable evidence to say whether or not advocacy had a positive impact, found the research review by the National Development Team for Inclusion (NDTi).
The report, which looked at 83 documents about advocacy published since 1990, said the research tended to look at individual studies and anecdotes rather than drawing wider conclusions on advocacy.
The studies looked at in the paper also tended to rely on descriptions of advocacy rather than empirical, independently verified evidence, and tended to stress the potential of advocacy rather than its quantified impact and outcomes, the report said.
The papers reviewed also focused on the outputs of advocacy, rather than the outcomes it achieves.
The report found cost-benefit analyses tended to focus on narrow groups, like parents with learning disabilities whose children were subject to safeguarding procedures. Only a limited number of these studies could be deemed robust, but these all showed a financial benefit from advocacy.
Rob Greig, chief executive of NDTi, said commissioners faced with tight budgets, might decide not to fund advocacy without better evidence for its benefits.
“When you have activities like advocacy where there is limited evidence there is a risk it becomes an optional thing to spend money on,” he said. “If you can evidence the positive impact of advocacy that is what increases the ability of local people to argue for increased expenditure on it.”
The report recommended that a cost-benefit analysis of advocacy and comprehensive mapping of services should be carried out. It also said research should be done into the independence of advocacy and extent to which it adhered to good practice.
Greig said data collected by local commissioners could contribute to an evidence base about advocacy. Government and national research bodies could also fund more work on the subject, he added.
The paper comes after the government amended the Care Bill to give people a right to independent advocacy during assessment and support planning if they would otherwise have substantial difficulty understanding the process. Greig said there is some evidence that funding for advocacy is reducing but the Care Bill might help to reverse that. However without better evidence about advocacy there was a risk that the reduction in spending on advocacy could continue, he warned.
The study was funded by National Institute for Health Research’s School for Social Care Research.
A trauma-informed approach to social work: practice tips 
Problem gambling: how to recognise the warning signs 
Find out how to develop your emotional resilience with our free downloadable guide 
Develop your social work career with Community Care’s Careers and Training Guide 
‘Dear Sajid Javid: please end the inappropriate detention of autistic people and those with learning disabilities’
Ofsted calls for power to scrutinise children’s home groups
Seven in eight commissioners paying below ‘minimum rate for home care’
Facebook
X
LinkedIn
Instagram
Of course Advocacy should be evidence based how else would performance be measured?
The Care Bill will give people a right to independent advocacy during assessment and support planning again vital but carers already are and often the best advocates in these circumstances and should be equal partners in any process and of course are free unlike advocacy who’s service may be charged to the service user. I am guessing leaving ‘free’ service out of the care bill could be seen as a deliberate error ?
Another cut for individuals that required services and employment. This service is relevant to everyone, I would the Government to re-think their attitude prior to closing this vital service. For someone to say that this server is not important as it can’t measure. They should questioned the people that used advocacy service and support.
Disappointing and inaccurate from NDTI. Perhaps they should actually speak to some of the professional advocacy services in the UK before undermining their position.
Most advocacy projects would not be funded without monitoring the effectiveness of their services and have become better and better at it.
I suggest that people working in advocacy projects contact the NDTI and challenge this strange statement from them.