Practice perspectives and theoretical debates about social workers’ legal powers to protect adults

Abstract

Summary This paper explores arguments for and against increasing social workers’ legal powers in adult protection (safeguarding) in England, where there is no direct power of entry. It draws on a research study conducted in 2016–17 involving an international literature review, interviews with social workers (n = 22), managers (n = 15), older and disabled people (n = 6) and carers (n = 5) and a survey of adult safeguarding managers (n = 27). The paper contextualises findings by exploring concepts of vulnerability and autonomy. Findings Most participants were in favour of increased powers for social workers undertaking safeguarding enquiries. A power of entry was seen to strengthen the legal basis of safeguarding and provide legitimacy for social workers to act. However, many participants expressed reservations, arguing that cases could generally be resolved with good social work, there would be a risk of negative impact on adults at risk and their families, the power of entry conflicted with social work practice and values and it could negatively affect social work relationships. Such arguments indicate a nuanced view of autonomy and vulnerability, which allow for doubt about the autonomy of people with capacity in certain circumstances. Applications The paper suggests the need for investment in the processes of implementation of risk management if increased legal powers are introduced. There could be a value in encouraging social workers to make explicit their assumptions about the definitions of vulnerability and its impact on autonomy and to explore the subjective experience of vulnerability in their judgements about intervening in these kinds of situations.

Securing citizens’ social rights under neoliberal welfare governance: the case of Israeli social services

“…However, little progress has been achieved theretoward. It may be argued that a certain scope of discretion is advantageous, and the use of detailed legislation to promote policy and ensure social rights may lead to more harmful consequences than beneficial ones, owing to the possible establishment of a minimum level of services, a potential reduction in the influence of local communities on services, and the challenges that regulation poses to social workers' ability to adapt services to diverse needs (e.g., Braye et al, 2013;Stevens et al, 2020). At the same time, under the continuous absence of resources that characterize the Israeli welfare system, it is doubtful that broad discretion can actually realize some or any of its potential advantages over time (Yanay, 2006).…”

Protecting vulnerable adults in Singapore: the creation of the Vulnerable Adults Act 2018

“…The English Government’s decision, following the review of its No Secrets guidance, was not to give powers of entry to social workers and others (Stevens et al , 2020). Other jurisdictions’ powers were considered in Singapore, but not followed, such as mandatory reporting:…”

Approved mental health professionals: A jack of all trades? Hybrid professional roles within a mental health occupation

“…The role of the AMHP is mirrored in other contexts, e.g. the ASW in Northern Ireland (Mental Health (Northern Ireland Order, 1986); Mankelow et al., 2002) or within the Baker Act, Florida (1971), where a licensed mental health professional may initiate an involuntary examination that lasts for up to 72 hours. Other international contexts for the treatment of mentally disordered individuals tend to require legal and medical professionals to act as ‘applicants’.…”