Search results

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.

This paper aims to set out to share the reflections of safeguarding adult board managers as they worked through what is likely to be just the first wave of the coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic.

The paper draws on the experience of small number of safeguarding adult board managers who have provided reflections from practice.

This paper illustrates just some of the responses developed by safeguarding adult board managers and their boards to continue to deliver the work of safeguarding those at risk of abuse and harm in the face of unprecedented impact of the coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic on a key aspect of the safeguarding adult system in England.

The reflections reported here are not intended to offer a representative commentary on the experiences of those who oversee and manage safeguarding adults’ boards. It is intention to provide a flavour of some of the challenges and dilemmas faced and some of the creative solutions to address them used by one group of adult safeguarding practitioners.

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 issue of forced marriage is typically located within debates on violence against women, immigration control and cultural difference and is rarely considered in relation to adults with learning disabilities. The purpose of this paper is to argue that this is an issue which needs to be addressed by Safeguarding Adult Boards.

This paper draws upon original research undertaken by the author in conjunction with the Ann Craft Trust, a voluntary sector organisation which supports statutory, independent and voluntary sector organisations across the UK to protect adults at risk. The project sought to establish the extent to which the issue of forced marriage of people with learning disabilities is recognised, understood and acted upon by Boards.

Although many Boards are aware of national policy guidelines, very few had incorporated these guidelines into their local practice. There were two key consequences of this. First, Boards were failing to monitor cases of forced marriage and were unable to plan preventative services. Second, frontline workers were not given necessary training and so were unable to develop effective skills of knowledge. The need for both better recognition of and improved responses to the problem of forced marriage of people with learning disabilities is highlighted, as is the need for the safeguarding workforce to be supported by more effective strategic planning and better training.

This paper draws upon original research which examined how Safeguarding Adult Boards are responding to the issue of forced marriage of people with learning disabilities – a problem currently very much under-represented in existing research and practice literature.

The purpose of this paper is to report on a part of a study examining the interrelationships between personalisation and safeguarding practice. Specifically the authors aimed to examine how safeguarding practice is affected by the roll out of personalisation in adult social care, particularly when the adult at risk has a personal budget or is considering this.

A sample of annual reports from Adult Safeguarding Boards in England was accessed for content analysis covering the period 2009-2011. One part of this sample of local authorities was selected at random; the other authorities selected had been early adopters of personalisation. The reports were analysed using a pro forma to collect salient information on personalisation that was cross-referenced to identify common themes and differences.

The authors found variable mentions of personalisation as part of the macro policy context reported in the annual reviews, some examples of system or process changes at mezzo level where opportunities to discuss the interface were emerging, and some small reports of training and case accounts relevant to personalisation. Overall these two policy priorities seemed to be more closely related than had been found in earlier research on the interface between adult safeguarding and personalisation.

There was wide variation in the annual reports in terms of detail, size and content, and reports for only one year were collected. Developments may have taken place but might not have been recorded in the annual reports so these should not be relied upon as complete accounts of organisational or practice developments.

Authors of Safeguarding Adults Board reports may benefit from learning that their reports may be read both immediately and potentially in the future. They may wish to ensure their comments on current matters will be intelligible to possible future readers and researchers.

There does not appear to have been any other previous study of Safeguarding Adult Boards’ annual reports. Documentary analysis at local level is under-developed in safeguarding studies.

Criticisms of the effectiveness of Local Safeguarding Children Boards (LSCBs) led to legislative reform in the shape of the Children and Social Work Act 2017. Given parallels between the mandates for LSCBs and Safeguarding Adults Boards (SABs), the onus is on SABs to demonstrate their effectiveness. The purpose of this paper is to explore how SABs might more effectively demonstrate their impact across the range of their mandated responsibilities.

The paper draws on definitions of impact from social work education, healthcare and from university research, exploring their relevance for capturing different types of data regarding the outcomes and impact of SAB activity. The paper also draws on frameworks for the process of capturing data and for implementing strategies designed to change practice and develop adult safeguarding services.

The paper argues that SABs have struggled to identify their impact and need to consider what types of impact they are seeking to demonstrate before choosing methods of seeking to capture that information. The paper also argues that SABs may have given insufficient thought to the process of change management, to the components needed to ensure that desired outcomes are embedded in procedural and practice change.

This paper explores the challenges for SABs of identifying their impact and offers some theoretical frameworks that have defined different types of impact. The paper also draws on frameworks that identify the different components that are necessary for achieving change. This paper offers a contribution to theory building and is a response to the challenge of demonstrating the value that SABs add to adult safeguarding policy and practice.

A case study reviews the findings of the longitudinal service development and practice change initiative to embed making safeguarding personal in adult safeguarding. The findings of that initiative are mapped against the frameworks for identifying impact. Experience of implementing the initiative is mapped against the frameworks for effective implementation of change.

The paper presents frameworks for identifying the different types of outcomes and impact that SABs may achieve through their strategic business plans and for ensuring that the different components are present for the successful implementation and maintenance of change. The paper argues that the legal, policy and financial context within which SABs are located presents challenges as well as opportunities with respect to achieving and demonstrating impactful change. However, it also suggests that a more informed understanding of different types of impact may generate different approaches to data collection in order to capture what has been achieved.

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.

This study aims to describe the sector-led response to the COVID-19 pandemic and national lockdown in terms of safeguarding adults.

This study uses a case study method to examine a sector-led improvement response to COVID-19 and safeguarding adults.

The study describes how safeguarding issues and concerns were identified and brought together, and then responded to. It reviews this initiative in the context of crisis intervention theory and discusses the achievements of this initiative regarding COVID-19 and safeguarding adults during the period April–July 2020.

The study describes a unique joint initiative between the Local Government Association and the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, which worked with the Networks of Chairs of Safeguarding Adults Boards, Safeguarding Adults Boards’ managers and Principal Social Workers. This initiative developed resources and shared information and good practice to support a response in unprecedented circumstances.

The purpose of this paper is to set out the Law Commission's final recommendations for the reform of adult social care, with a particular emphasis on the recommendations for a new legal framework for adult safeguarding in England and Wales.

The paper discusses each of the Law Commission's recommendations for adult safeguarding and contrasts them with the proposals put forward at the consultation phase of the review.

The paper argues that a single legal framework for adult social care, including adult safeguarding, with have substantial benefits in terms of legal clarity, consistency and efficiency.

A clear and single legal framework is important for older and disabled people, and their carers, in order to understand fully their entitlements, and for local authorities and partnership agencies (such as the NHS and the police) in order to understand fully their responsibilities.

The paper provides a clear summary of the Law Commission's final report – in particular the recommendations for adult safeguarding.

The purpose of this paper is to review the reasons underlying the slow rate of progress towards developing a comprehensive policy underpinning for adult safeguarding in England and proposes long-term solutions.

This paper uses a model of policy change to argue that adult safeguarding has been over-reliant on case histories to define its policy problems and influence its politics, while making insufficient progress on data collection and analysis. It uses examples from the parallel discipline of public health to explore four challenges, or “problems”, relevant to the further development of the knowledge base underpinning adult safeguarding policy.

Four recommendations emerge for closing the adult safeguarding “knowledge gap”, including the development of a national research strategy for adult safeguarding. In a fifth recommendation the paper also proposes a clearer recognition of the contribution that local public health professionals can make to local adult safeguarding policy making and programme development.

The first four recommendations of this paper would serve as the basis for developing a national research strategy for adult safeguarding. The fifth would strengthen the contribution of local public health departments to safeguarding adults boards.

The author is unaware of the existence of any other review of the limitations of the adult safeguarding knowledge base as a foundation for policy making, or which proposes strategic solutions. The work is valuable for its practical proposals.