Search results

The purpose of this paper is to set out the similarities and differences between the legal frameworks for safeguarding children and adults. It presents the case for developing a Transitional Safeguarding approach to create an integrated paradigm for safeguarding young people that better meets their developmental needs and better reflects the nature of harms young people face.

This paper draws on the key principles of the Children Act 1989 and the Care Act 2014 and discusses their similarities and differences. It then introduces two approaches to safeguarding: Making Safeguarding Personal (MSP); and transitional safeguarding; that can inform safeguarding work with young people. Other legal frameworks that influence safeguarding practices, such as the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Human Rights Act 1998, are also discussed.

Safeguarding practice still operates within a child/adult binary; neither safeguarding system adequately meets the needs of young people. Transitional Safeguarding advocates an approach to working with young people that is relational, developmental and contextual. MSP focuses on the wishes of the person at risk from abuse or neglect and their desired outcomes. This is also central to a Transitional Safeguarding approach, which is participative, evidence informed and promotes equalities, diversity and inclusion.

Building a case for developing MSP for young people means that local partnerships could create the type of service that best meets local needs, whilst ensuring their services are participative and responsive to the specific safeguarding needs of individual young people.

This paper promotes applying the principles of MSP to safeguarding practice with young people. It argues that the differences between the children and adult legislative frameworks are not so great that they would inhibit this approach to safeguarding young people.

The purpose of this paper is to set out the evidence base to date for Transitional Safeguarding to support authors of Safeguarding Adult Reviews (SARs) where Transitional Safeguarding is a key theme in the review.

This paper draws on key evidence from several published sources about Transitional Safeguarding in England. This evidence is presented in this paper as a framework for analysis to support SAR authors. It follows the same four domains framework used in other adult safeguarding reviews: direct work with individuals; team around the person; organisational support for team members; and governance. This framework was then applied to two SARs written by two of the article’s authors.

The framework for analysis for Transitional Safeguarding SARs was applied as part of the methodology of two separate SARs regarding three young people. Key reflections from applying the framework to both SARs are identified and discussed. These included: providing an effective framework for analysis which all participants could use and a contribution for developing knowledge. Whilst many issues arising for safeguarding young people are similar to those for other adults, there are some unique features. The ways in which the gaps between children and adults systems play out through inter-agency and multi-professional working, as well as how “lifestyle choices” of young people are understood and interpreted are key issues.

This paper presents an evidence base regarding Transitional Safeguarding for SAR authors who are tasked with completing a SAR where Transitional Safeguarding is a key theme.

This paper draws together key literature and evidence about Transitional Safeguarding practice with young people. This paper argues that this framework for analysis provides SAR authors with a useful tool to support their analysis in this complex area of practice.

Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs), like other universities, are faced with challenges related to faculty diversity. The literature related to faculty at HSIs is scant and so this paper aims to address this gap by problematizing faculty diversity at these institutions.

By means of a document analysis, the authors have scoured the data on faculty demographics at these institutions and the findings of the study are threefold.

First, a lack of accessible and transparent data exists. Second, there is a lack of available demographic information and third, this creates a dismal narrative regarding faculty diversity at HSIs.

Further critical research is warranted as a means to uncover data on faculty diversity at HSIs.

This study supports the need for a critical consciousness lens to problematize faculty diversity at HSIs.