SCOTLAND. Scottish Executive. Development Department
Publisher:
Scotland. Scottish Executive
Publication year:
2005
Pagination:
6p.
Place of publication:
Edinburgh
A leaflet setting out the latest news from Supporting People. In this issue new from the Same As You Implementation Group; Scottish Council for Single Homeless and Scottish Youth Housing Network; the Thistle Foundation and the Altrum conference.
A leaflet setting out the latest news from Supporting People. In this issue new from the Same As You Implementation Group; Scottish Council for Single Homeless and Scottish Youth Housing Network; the Thistle Foundation and the Altrum conference.
Subject terms:
learning disabilities, person-centred care, advocacy;
Intermediaries are a crucial aid to helping witnesses communicate more complete, more accurate and more coherent evidence in court. Vulnerable witnesses who need help in court include children and young people under the age of 17 and people with physical, mental or learning disabilities or disorders. Intermediaries are selected for their specialist communication facilitation skills and experience, for example, speech and language therapists, psychologists, teachers, health professionals, children s guardians and social care workers. Intermediaries can mean the difference between vulnerable witnesses communicating their best evidence or not communicating at all. Witnesses are key to the success of the criminal justice system. Too often in the past people who have difficulty communicating have not been able to give evidence and as a result wrong doers have not been brought to justice. Vulnerable witnesses in particular must receive the help and support they need to feel confident and reassured about giving evidence.
Intermediaries are a crucial aid to helping witnesses communicate more complete, more accurate and more coherent evidence in court. Vulnerable witnesses who need help in court include children and young people under the age of 17 and people with physical, mental or learning disabilities or disorders. Intermediaries are selected for their specialist communication facilitation skills and experience, for example, speech and language therapists, psychologists, teachers, health professionals, children s guardians and social care workers. Intermediaries can mean the difference between vulnerable witnesses communicating their best evidence or not communicating at all. Witnesses are key to the success of the criminal justice system. Too often in the past people who have difficulty communicating have not been able to give evidence and as a result wrong doers have not been brought to justice. Vulnerable witnesses in particular must receive the help and support they need to feel confident and reassured about giving evidence.
GREAT BRITAIN. Parliament. House of Lords. Committee on the Mental Health Act 2005
Publisher:
Stationery Office
Publication year:
2014
Pagination:
143
Place of publication:
London
The Committee’s key finding in this evidence-led inquiry is that the Mental Capacity Act 2005 is not widely implemented. To address this, the Committee recommends that responsibility for implementing the Act be given to an independent body. The Committee’s second key finding is that the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards are not fit for purpose. The Committee recommends that they be replaced with new provisions. This report considers: whether the Act is working as intended in respect of the Act’s five core principles; how to address poor implementation of the Act; advocacy and advance planning; whether the Court of Protection is appropriate (or should there be a Mental Capacity Tribunal instead); and criminal law provisions under Section 44 of the Act. It summarises and refers to cases of unlawful detention under the Act (Steven Neary), and the deprivation of liberty of an autistic man with a profound learning disability, HL at Bournewood Hospital for 32 years. It includes as a good practice example, the work by Jim Blair, a learning disability nurse consultant who explained adjustments made for effective treatment and outcomes for adults with learning disabilities appropriate to their needs. The Committee makes recommendations to Government to: work with regulators and professional bodies to ensure the Act is given a higher profile in training, standard setting and inspections; increase staff resources at the Court of Protection to speed up handling of non-controversial cases; and reconsider the provision of non-means tested legal aid to those who lack capacity, especially in cases of deprivation of liberty. Local authorities should use their discretionary powers to appoint Independent Mental Capacity Advocates more widely than is currently the case. The Government should act on the poor levels of awareness and understanding of Lasting Powers of Attorney and advance decisions to refuse treatment among professionals in the health and social care sectors. The Government should also review the criminal law provision for ill-treatment or neglect of a person lacking capacity, to ensure that the Act is fit for purpose. The Committee recommends that the House of Lords seek an update from the Government twelve months from now to find out what they have done in response to their key recommendations. An easy read version is also available.
(Edited publisher abstract)
The Committee’s key finding in this evidence-led inquiry is that the Mental Capacity Act 2005 is not widely implemented. To address this, the Committee recommends that responsibility for implementing the Act be given to an independent body. The Committee’s second key finding is that the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards are not fit for purpose. The Committee recommends that they be replaced with new provisions. This report considers: whether the Act is working as intended in respect of the Act’s five core principles; how to address poor implementation of the Act; advocacy and advance planning; whether the Court of Protection is appropriate (or should there be a Mental Capacity Tribunal instead); and criminal law provisions under Section 44 of the Act. It summarises and refers to cases of unlawful detention under the Act (Steven Neary), and the deprivation of liberty of an autistic man with a profound learning disability, HL at Bournewood Hospital for 32 years. It includes as a good practice example, the work by Jim Blair, a learning disability nurse consultant who explained adjustments made for effective treatment and outcomes for adults with learning disabilities appropriate to their needs. The Committee makes recommendations to Government to: work with regulators and professional bodies to ensure the Act is given a higher profile in training, standard setting and inspections; increase staff resources at the Court of Protection to speed up handling of non-controversial cases; and reconsider the provision of non-means tested legal aid to those who lack capacity, especially in cases of deprivation of liberty. Local authorities should use their discretionary powers to appoint Independent Mental Capacity Advocates more widely than is currently the case. The Government should act on the poor levels of awareness and understanding of Lasting Powers of Attorney and advance decisions to refuse treatment among professionals in the health and social care sectors. The Government should also review the criminal law provision for ill-treatment or neglect of a person lacking capacity, to ensure that the Act is fit for purpose. The Committee recommends that the House of Lords seek an update from the Government twelve months from now to find out what they have done in response to their key recommendations. An easy read version is also available.
(Edited publisher abstract)
Subject terms:
mental capacity, vulnerable adults, learning disabilities, mental health problems, Court of Protection, advocacy, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, criminal law, Mental Capacity Act 2005;
GREAT BRITAIN. Department for Constitutional Affairs
Publisher:
Great Britain. Department for Constitutional Affairs
Publication year:
2006
Pagination:
46p.
Place of publication:
London
This consultation paper invites comments on style and content from all interested parties on the draft Code of Practice for the Mental Capacity Act 2005. It provides questions on each of the 15 chapters so that responses may be tailored to areas of interest, as well as an overall question that provides for more general comments.
This consultation paper invites comments on style and content from all interested parties on the draft Code of Practice for the Mental Capacity Act 2005. It provides questions on each of the 15 chapters so that responses may be tailored to areas of interest, as well as an overall question that provides for more general comments.
Subject terms:
learning disabilities, mental health law, mental health problems, rights, vulnerable adults, advocacy, decision making, dementia, Mental Capacity Act 2005;
GREAT BRITAIN. Department for Constitutional Affairs
Publisher:
Great Britain. Department for Constitutional Affairs
Publication year:
2006
Pagination:
63p.
Place of publication:
London
This consultation paper seeks views and comments on the provisions of the draft rules of court that will govern proceedings before the new Court of Protection. It also seeks general comments as to the framework that the draft rules provide and on the individual rules.
This consultation paper seeks views and comments on the provisions of the draft rules of court that will govern proceedings before the new Court of Protection. It also seeks general comments as to the framework that the draft rules provide and on the individual rules.
This review sets out to investigate the nature and extent of evidence relating to independent advocacy for disabled people at risk of losing choice and control in four specific situations: during transition to adulthood; when the children of disabled parents are subject to safeguarding procedures; when entry to residential care is a possibility; when disabled people are victims or alleged perpetrators of anti-social behaviour. In doing so, it describes and evaluates evidence about the need, costs and benefits associated with independent advocacy. The final section summarises the state of the evidence base currently available and the gaps therein, and suggests what additional research is needed to further our knowledge in this field.
This review sets out to investigate the nature and extent of evidence relating to independent advocacy for disabled people at risk of losing choice and control in four specific situations: during transition to adulthood; when the children of disabled parents are subject to safeguarding procedures; when entry to residential care is a possibility; when disabled people are victims or alleged perpetrators of anti-social behaviour. In doing so, it describes and evaluates evidence about the need, costs and benefits associated with independent advocacy. The final section summarises the state of the evidence base currently available and the gaps therein, and suggests what additional research is needed to further our knowledge in this field.
Subject terms:
learning disabilities, mental health problems, mentally disordered offenders, offenders, parents with learning disabilities, residential care, sensory impairments, service transitions, advocacy, anti-social behaviour, child protection, crime victims, disabilities;
This is the executive summary of a review which sets out to investigate the nature and extent of evidence relating to independent advocacy for disabled people at risk of losing choice and control in four specific situations: during transition to adulthood; when the children of disabled parents are subject to safeguarding procedures; when entry to residential care is a possibility; when disabled people are victims or alleged perpetrators of anti-social behaviour. In doing so, it describes and evaluates evidence about the need, costs and benefits associated with independent advocacy. The final section summarises the state of the evidence base currently available and the gaps therein, and suggests what additional research is needed to further our knowledge in this field.
This is the executive summary of a review which sets out to investigate the nature and extent of evidence relating to independent advocacy for disabled people at risk of losing choice and control in four specific situations: during transition to adulthood; when the children of disabled parents are subject to safeguarding procedures; when entry to residential care is a possibility; when disabled people are victims or alleged perpetrators of anti-social behaviour. In doing so, it describes and evaluates evidence about the need, costs and benefits associated with independent advocacy. The final section summarises the state of the evidence base currently available and the gaps therein, and suggests what additional research is needed to further our knowledge in this field.
Subject terms:
learning disabilities, mental health problems, mentally disordered offenders, offenders, parents with learning disabilities, residential care, sensory impairments, service transitions, advocacy, anti-social behaviour, child protection, crime victims, disabilities;
The Mental Capacity Act 2005 created the Independent Mental Capacity Advocate (IMCA) service as a safeguard for people without the capacity to make certain important decisions and without family or friends to support them. The Act also introduced a legal duty on NHS bodies and local authorities to refer eligible people to the IMCA service. The service started on 1st April 2007 and this is the report on its second year’s work. There was a 27 percent rise (to 6582) in the number of people receiving representation from the IMCA service compared to the first year. This comprised a 14 percent increase (to 3496) for decisions relating to accommodation moves; a 102 percent increase (to 387) for decisions relating to care reviews; a 43 percent increase (to 968) for decisions relating to serious medical treatment; and a 29 percent increase (to 960) in adult protection proceedings. There is concern that the service is not yet reaching all the people who would benefit, particularly with regard to the continuing low rate of referrals for serious medical treatment. A small study revealed that commissioners were mainly pleased with the service though they wanted IMCAs to be more available and to deliver reports faster. MCA leads in local authorities commented on the professionalism of IMCAs and the benefits to the client group. However, there was a perception within health care settings that involving an IMCA delayed treatment..
The Mental Capacity Act 2005 created the Independent Mental Capacity Advocate (IMCA) service as a safeguard for people without the capacity to make certain important decisions and without family or friends to support them. The Act also introduced a legal duty on NHS bodies and local authorities to refer eligible people to the IMCA service. The service started on 1st April 2007 and this is the report on its second year’s work. There was a 27 percent rise (to 6582) in the number of people receiving representation from the IMCA service compared to the first year. This comprised a 14 percent increase (to 3496) for decisions relating to accommodation moves; a 102 percent increase (to 387) for decisions relating to care reviews; a 43 percent increase (to 968) for decisions relating to serious medical treatment; and a 29 percent increase (to 960) in adult protection proceedings. There is concern that the service is not yet reaching all the people who would benefit, particularly with regard to the continuing low rate of referrals for serious medical treatment. A small study revealed that commissioners were mainly pleased with the service though they wanted IMCAs to be more available and to deliver reports faster. MCA leads in local authorities commented on the professionalism of IMCAs and the benefits to the client group. However, there was a perception within health care settings that involving an IMCA delayed treatment..
Subject terms:
law, learning disabilities, local authorities, medical treatment, mental capacity, mental health problems, vulnerable adults, access to services, admission to care, safeguarding adults, adult social care, advocacy, carers, decision making, dementia, Independent Mental Capacity Advocacy;
Corporate Document Services; Great Britain. Department for Work and Pensions
Publication year:
2004
Pagination:
161p.
Place of publication:
Leeds
The qualitative research took place in nine Local Authorities across England, to obtain the perspectives of users of day services, their carers, managers and staff of days services, and managers of employment-related providers, both within the Local Authority and independent of it. Key findings include: the majority of people interviewed who worked were paid. Most people earned only the minimum wage or just above; most people worked for less than five hours per week, some worked five to 15 hours, and a small minority worked more than 16 hours; carers were more critical of day services than were people with learning disabilities; carers views on employment varied widely, but many carers were powerful advocates for employment. Many carers we talked to valued work highly and felt that being employed was beneficial to their relative; day centres varied greatly in the emphasis they placed on achieving paid employment outcomes. Some focused on employment and understood good practice in the area, while other were imprecise about how their activities helped people to get jobs; it is easier for people to find and stay in work if they receive specifically targeted support in which employment of their choice is assumed to be a goal; evidence suggests that a comprehensive range of work exploration, work placement and support services are required to help a greater number of people into paid jobs; the reason people work few hours is mainly due to the perceived and potentially real loss of earnings due to Income Support rules which acts as a disincentive, rather than due to limits deriving from health and support needs.
The qualitative research took place in nine Local Authorities across England, to obtain the perspectives of users of day services, their carers, managers and staff of days services, and managers of employment-related providers, both within the Local Authority and independent of it. Key findings include: the majority of people interviewed who worked were paid. Most people earned only the minimum wage or just above; most people worked for less than five hours per week, some worked five to 15 hours, and a small minority worked more than 16 hours; carers were more critical of day services than were people with learning disabilities; carers views on employment varied widely, but many carers were powerful advocates for employment. Many carers we talked to valued work highly and felt that being employed was beneficial to their relative; day centres varied greatly in the emphasis they placed on achieving paid employment outcomes. Some focused on employment and understood good practice in the area, while other were imprecise about how their activities helped people to get jobs; it is easier for people to find and stay in work if they receive specifically targeted support in which employment of their choice is assumed to be a goal; evidence suggests that a comprehensive range of work exploration, work placement and support services are required to help a greater number of people into paid jobs; the reason people work few hours is mainly due to the perceived and potentially real loss of earnings due to Income Support rules which acts as a disincentive, rather than due to limits deriving from health and support needs.
Subject terms:
income, income support, learning disabilities, supported employment, advocacy, benefits, carers, day centres, employment, good practice, government departments;
Minority ethnic communities face substantial inequalities and discrimination in employment, education, health and social services. People with learning difficulties from minority ethnic communities experience simultaneous disadvantage in relation to race, impairment and for women, gender. Negative stereotypes and attitudes held by service professionals contribute to the disadvantage they face.
Minority ethnic communities face substantial inequalities and discrimination in employment, education, health and social services. People with learning difficulties from minority ethnic communities experience simultaneous disadvantage in relation to race, impairment and for women, gender. Negative stereotypes and attitudes held by service professionals contribute to the disadvantage they face.
Subject terms:
learning disabilities, physical disabilities, planning, stereotyped attitudes, access to services, advocacy, Asian people, attitudes, black and minority ethnic people, discrimination, education, employment, empowerment;