Search results

In 2010, the Department of Health announced its intention to pilot arrangements for independent adult social work practices to exercise local authorities' adult social care functions. Supporting legislation was not made until August 2011. This paper seeks to illustrate the legal obstacles that local authorities ordinarily face if they intend for third‐party involvement in adult social care to extend beyond the provision of services.

This paper is an analysis of the Contracting Out (Local Authorities Social Services Functions) (England) Order, 2011.

The principal findings of this paper are twofold. After some delay, the Department of Health has put in place a legal framework to support the piloting of independent adult social work practices. The need for new law illustrates the general limitations faced by authorities that wish to contract out their adult social care decision‐making functions.

The paper's value lies in the analysis of the legal obstacles faced by local authorities who wish deeply to integrate their adult social care functions within the activities of third‐party providers.

Adult Safeguarding Boards are the means by which local authorities in England and Wales seek to work collaboratively to protect adults at risk of abuse. The last two years have heralded the emergence of the role of Independent Chairs. This paper seeks to outline the experience of Adult Safeguarding Boards from around North West England.

A general review of the seven Independent Chairs and 15 employed chairs (typically Directors of Adult Social Services) in North West England endorsed the importance of having a virtual network to work on a shared portfolio of interests.

The review highlighted concerns regarding the independence of Independent Chairs, the challenges to partnership working created by the turnover of managers, the governance of Adult safeguarding Boards, and their performance and practice.

The paper confirms that diversity is the dominant characteristic of Adult Safeguarding Boards in North West England.

The purpose of this paper is to describe the Making Safeguarding Personal (MSP) programme undertaken in 2013/2014 and summarises the learning and messages from this phase of work. This informed both the subsequent mainstreaming of the programme to all councils, and national policy on safeguarding adults in England.

Following the “test bed” phase in 2012/2013, MSP pilots were developed in 53 councils. They adopted a new outcomes focused and person led approach to adult safeguarding practice. Supported by the Local Government Association and partners, these councils changed their safeguarding practice and how adults were involved in safeguarding processes. Adults’ wishes were identified at the early stages of investigation, and reviewed during and at the end of the safeguarding process. In total, 43 councils provided impact statements on work undertaken, mainly between December 2013 and February 2014.

Key findings from the impact statements evidenced that adopting a personalised approach made safeguarding more effective and provided opportunities for developing social work practice. A range of challenges were encountered and overcome. The experiences of the MSP pilot sites informed the Care Act guidance issued in October 2014.

The MSP programme has stimulated an innovative culture change in safeguarding adults’ practice. It provides a means for Safeguarding Adults Boards to ascertain the effectiveness of local services in achieving the desired outcomes of vulnerable adults at risk of abuse or harm. Practitioners, managers and others will have an interest in this major change.

This paper aims to present a digest of the main discussion points and key findings from a recent Social Care Institute for Excellence report on risk enablement and safeguarding in the context of self‐directed support and personal budgets.

The paper explores how the personalisation agenda and adult safeguarding can work together in policy and practice and addresses some of the frontline concerns about empowerment and duty of care.

Evidence on how self‐directed support and personal budgets can be used to enable people to take positive risks while staying safe and emerging practice is examined. It suggests that person‐centred working in adult safeguarding, along with the mechanism of self‐directed support planning and outcome review, can support the individual to identify the risks they want to take and those they want to avoid in order to stay safe. It is clear that if frontline practitioners are overly occupied with protecting organisations and individuals from financial abuse, this will impact on the capacity of those practitioners exercising their duty of care at the front line. This means that practitioners are less able to engage with individuals to identify safeguarding issues and enable positive risk taking. Defensive risk management strategies or risk‐averse frontline practice may then result in individuals not being adequately supported to make choices and take control and, therefore, being put at risk. Practitioners need to be supported by local authorities to incorporate safeguarding and risk enablement in their relationship‐based, person‐centred working. Good quality, consistent and trusted relationships and good communication are particularly important for self‐directed support and personal budget schemes.

The use of “risk enablement panels” and “personalisation and safeguarding frameworks” are two ways to address some of the issues in practice.

The purpose of this article is to report the findings from research into the governance of adult safeguarding policy and practice in England, with particular focus on interagency partnership arrangements expressed through Safeguarding Adults Boards.

The study comprised a systematic search and thematic analysis of English‐language literature on adult safeguarding governance, a survey of Safeguarding Adults Board documentation, and key informant interviews and workshops with professionals involved in adult protection.

The effectiveness of adult safeguarding governance arrangements has not been subject to prior formal evaluation and thus the literature provided little research‐led evidence of good practice. The survey and workshops, however, revealed a rich and complex pattern of arrangements spanning a number of dimensions – the goals and purpose of interagency working, the structures of boards, their membership, chairing and rules of engagement, their functions, and their accountabilities.

The research focus here is England, and thus does not incorporate learning from other jurisdictions. Whilst the research scrutinises the extent to which Boards practise empowerment, service users and carers are not directly involved in the fieldwork aspects of this study. In view of the absence of outcomes evidence identified, there remains a need to investigate the impacts of different forms of governance.

Drawing on this research and on governance frameworks in the context of related interagency fields, the article identifies standards to benchmark the approach to governance taken by Safeguarding Adult Boards.

The benchmarking framework will enable Safeguarding Adults Boards to audit, evaluate, and further develop a range of robust governance arrangements.

The paper reports on the findings of a survey of 115 (76 per cent) of English local authorities in 2016 which compared progress on the implementation of the Making Safeguarding Personal (MSP) approach in local authorities through their Adult Social Care departments and in relation to their area Safeguarding Adults Boards (SABs) and partner organisations. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the survey in relation to personalised social care and its impact on organisations, their staff and service users, and conclude with wider implications and recommendations for further work.

A series of guided interviews were conducted with safeguarding leads from a sample comprising of 115 (76 per cent) of English local authorities during May and June 2016. The sample was randomly picked and balanced to give a fair representation of the different types of councils. The interviews were conducted by a team of five people. All interviewers had in-depth experience of adult safeguarding and were currently practicing independent chairs of SABs. The interviewers followed a prepared schedule consisting of a mixture of open and closed questions. All interviews were held over the phone and averaged one-hour duration.

The results pointed to the impression that the majority of local authorities had completed the first step of introducing MSP, i.e. they had trained their workers and modified their systems. Most local authorities were moving into the next phase of embedding user-focussed work into their practice and culture, and were at various points along that journey. However, most had still to engage partner organisations beyond a mere acceptance of MSP as “a good thing”.

The research has wide ranging implications for organisations and their workers in the field of adult safeguarding based on its findings. Its limitations are that only organisational leaders and managers were interviewed, although reference is extensively made to initiatives that engage service users. The authors acknowledged the possible bias of interviewees when judging the performance of their own service and attempted to moderate their views in the final report.

The report references many practical implications to improve the practice of adult safeguarding in an attempt to make it more person-centred. Examples of good practice are given and recommendations are made to organisations.

It is recognised that there are many people who may be at risk of harm through their environmental, personal, age or disability-related situations. In improving the way that services respond to their needs, they will be made to feel safer and their lives enhanced.

This original research follows up previous research in the preceding year. It is the widest ranging in its coverage of 76 per cent of English local authorities. Its value is that it measures progress towards full implementation of MSP; reports information and views from safeguarding leaders; and makes 20 recommendations to improve the implementation of MSP within local authorities, SABs and their partners.

The purpose of the paper is to improve the consistency and quality of the response to vulnerable adults who experience abuse and neglect within NHS, independent healthcare and social care settings is noted by practitioners, agencies and patients. Health and social care policy frameworks promote principles of service improvement and consistency, along with a focus on outcomes and resource effectiveness and interagency collaboration. The Protection of Vulnerable Adults (POVA) coordinator role carries the responsibility of coordinating a response to individual referrals of abuse and neglect as described as part of the Designated Lead Manager role in the Wales Interim POVA Policy and Procedures for the POVA from abuse (Wales Adult Protection Coordinators Group, 2013).

This paper will explore the benefits realised through a registered nurse being seconded from the Aneurin Bevan University Health Board into a newly created joint adult protection Health Coordinator post within the Caerphilly County Borough Council social services department POVA team.

This is the first example of such partnership working in adult protection in Wales and has provided a number of benefits in relation to: providing adult protection advice; coordinating the response to referrals of vulnerable adult abuse and neglect within health and social care settings; carrying out or buddying others to complete adult protection investigations; facilitating the two day non-criminal POVA investigation training course and, awareness raising within the local Health Board. The development of a student nurse placement in the social services POVA team cements the multiagency collaborative approach that this development sought to achieve.

The need to improve the consistency and quality of the response to vulnerable adults who experience abuse and neglect within NHS, independent healthcare and social care settings is noted by practitioners, agencies and patients.

The purpose of this paper is to look at the impacts on adult safeguarding partnerships and practice over 18 months following the implementation of the Care Act (2014) from the perspectives of an independent Chair of two Safeguarding Adults Boards (SABs) and a senior manager in adult social care in a local authority. They look at the areas of: wellbeing and safety, safeguarding activity and process, changing criteria and definitions, Making Safeguarding Personal, SABs, safeguarding adult reviews and advocacy.

The authors draw together information from published sources, experience and networks.

The paper argues that the impact on adult safeguarding and SABs has been greater than originally envisaged in a range of areas. This appears to be as a result of adult safeguarding having been made statutory, a new framework having been put in place, and added impetus given to a cultural change in adult safeguarding practice.

The authors have been engaged in delivering the adult safeguarding elements of the Care Act (2014) and so provide unique insight into the experience of making the changes required to meet the new statutory requirements and achieve the objective of protecting peoples’ rights to live in safety, free from abuse or neglect.

The purpose of this paper is to consider the importance of professional curiosity and partnership work in safeguarding adults from serious harm, abuse and neglect.

The paper draws on a range of materials including: review of published materials in relation to professional curiosity, reports from adult serious case reviews (SCRs) and safeguarding adult reviews (SARs); relevant materials drawn from the SAR Library, thematic reviews of SARs and Google searches; observations from practice and experience. It also refers to the relevant academic literature.

Lessons from SCRs and SARs show that a lack of professional curiosity and poor coordination of support can lead to poor assessments and intervention measures that can fail to support those at risk of harm and abuse. There are a number of barriers to professionals practicing with curiosity. Working in partnership enhances the likelihood that professional curiosity will flourish.

There are clear implications for improving practice by increasing professional curiosity amongst professionals. The authors argue that there is a scope to improve professional curiosity by utilising and developing existing partnerships, and ultimately to help reduce the number of deaths and incidents of serious harm.

The paper considers the importance of employing professional curiosity and partnership work in safeguarding adults’ practice, so enabling practitioners to better safeguard adults at risk of abuse and neglect.

In this chapter, I examine stories that foster care youth tell to legislatures, courts, policymakers, and the public to influence policy decisions. The stories told by these children are analogized to victim truth testimony, analyzed as a therapeutic, procedural, and developmental process, and examined as a catalyst for systemic accountability and change. Youth stories take different forms and appear in different media: testimony in legislatures, courts, research surveys or studies; opinion editorials and interviews in newspapers or blog posts; digital stories on YouTube; and artistic expression. Lawyers often serve as conduits for youth storytelling, translating their clients’ stories to the public. Organized advocacy by youth also informs and animates policy development. One recent example fosters youth organizing to promote “normalcy” in child welfare practices in Florida, and in related federal legislation.