Abstract

In this paper, I examine how advocates seek to improve the well-being of recipients who reside in organizations or systems of care in which factors influencing risk and jeopardy prevail. I use data from multiple action research projects to frame what I call ‘the advocate's compromise’: in systems and organizations regulating people who are considered vulnerable or dependent the advocate must advance collaborative relationships with care providers and supervisors so they become allies in advancing the well being of their charges. I place the advocate's compromise in context by amplifying a theory of diminished status, which offers a rationale for advocacy in social work. By identifying variation in its forms I illuminate the richness of advocacy practice in which the compromise is readily observable. In considering the context influencing the practice of advocacy in social work, I elaborate central aspects of the compromise, and reveal some of its ethical demands. Finally, I delineate principal strategies and tactics I have observed advocates employ to make the compromise a useful tool, particularly in total institutions, so incremental and limited advancements can make marginal improvements to a recipient's well-being without threatening the regulatory regime of care or supervision.