Practitioner perspectives on service users experiences of targeted violence and hostility in mental health and adult safeguarding

Hafford‐Letchfield, Trish; Carr, Sarah; Faulkner, Alison; Gould, Dorothy; Khisa, Christine; Cohen, Rachel; Megele, Claudia

doi:10.1080/09687599.2020.1779033

Cited by 6 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Both Iparraguirre (2014) and Forbat (2004) emphasise the correlation between abuse and structural issues such as poverty, race and class, rather than dominant accounts of abuse as an interpersonal phenomenon, while Brown (2000) refers to discriminatory abuse as a consequence of marginalisation. Several authors relate this to pathologising discourses about people with disabilities (Doherty, 2015; Sin et al , 2011; Balderston et al , 2019; Healy, 2020), people from minoritised ethnicities (Forbat, 2004), people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer or other non-heterosexual or non-cisgendered identities (LGBTQ+) (Westwood, 2018), older people (Bogdanova and Grigoryeva, 2021; Lyne and Parker, 2020) and people who experience mental health issues (Carr et al , 2019; Hafford-Letchfield et al , 2020). Intersectional identities, for example, a trans person with a disability, compound experiences of discrimination further (Balderston et al , 2019).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several articles discuss the significant and disproportionate impact of policies during COVID-19 for older people, particularly rights to private and family life (through increased social isolation) and rights to life (through misuse of Do Not Resuscitate processes) (Williams, 2021; Lyne and Parker, 2020; Bogdanova and Grigoryeva, 2021). Issues of power in statutory responses and unequal access to services are also emphasised (Hafford-Letchfield et al , 2020; Forbat, 2004).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Discriminatory abuse: time to revive a forgotten form of abuse?

Mason

Sasidharan

Cooper

et al. 2022

JAP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Discriminatory abuse has been a distinct category of abuse in safeguarding adults policy since 2000, but it is rarely used in practice, according to recent official statistics. As part of a larger project, the authors undertook a literature review to clarify the concept, explore reasons for low reporting and consider recommendations for practice. The purpose of this paper is to present the findings of this literature review. Design/methodology/approach This literature review comprises 35 sources, which were identified using three academic databases, reference harvesting and sector-specific websites. Findings were developed through thematic analysis of the data. Findings The literature review demonstrates that definitions of discriminatory abuse stretch from an interpersonal emphasis in policy documents to a more structural approach. There are open questions about the status of discriminatory abuse as a category of abuse due to the complicated interface between discriminatory motivations and the abusive acts through which they are experienced. A range of factors can obscure its identification, particularly the hidden, stigmatised and normalised nature of discriminatory abuse. Some recommendations for practice are identified, but more work is needed to develop the practice vocabulary and required skills. Originality/value This study brings together existing research on discriminatory abuse to argue that it is time to revive this understanding of abuse and develop safeguarding practice with adults who have protected characteristics.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Discriminatory abuse: time to revive a forgotten form of abuse?

Mason

Sasidharan

Cooper

et al. 2022

JAP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Increasingly, evidence highlights poor recognition of hate crimes within communities, organisations and strategic groups (Hafford-Letchfield et al, 2020;Roulstone and Sadique, 2013;Sin et al, 2009;Walters and Brown, 2016). Consequently, a lack of recognition leads to under-reporting and denies many disabled people the right to seek criminal justice recourse if a crime has been committed against them.…”

Section: Perceptions Of 'Vulnerability' and Changes In Adult Safeguar...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although the need for multi-agency working is evidenced, its implementation has historically been challenging (Sin, 2016). Agencies may not necessarily recognise they have a role to play in preventing or addressing hate crime, as existing literature indicates a lack of effective multi-agency response or coordination in many cases (Brown and Stein, 2000;Hafford-Letchfield et al, 2020;Quarmby, 2011;Richardson et al, 2016;Sin, 2016). Many professional partners in health and social care organisations, as well as housing and education, are slow to acknowledge their role, or to respond to it (Sin et al, 2009).…”

Section: Conclusion and Practice Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although a link to safeguarding issues and criminality is evidenced in the Care Act Statutory Guidance, under the more general terminology of 'criminal offences' (DHSC, 2021), there is no explicit reference to hate crime. The Care Act provides a statutory footing for safeguarding adults, which strengthens joint responsibilities of agencies in implementing appropriate safeguarding responses, however research highlights a continued gap in response to disability hate crimes (Hafford-Letchfield et al, 2020). This paper considers whether there are barriers to criminal justice, health and social care practitioners' recognition of and response to disability hate crimes through safeguarding teams.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Missing links: safeguarding and disability hate crime responses

Healy

Dray

2022

JAP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This paper aims to consider the relationship between disability hate crime and safeguarding adults. It critically considers whether safeguarding responses to disability hate crime have changed following the implementation of the Care Act 2014. Historically, protectionist responses to disabled people may have masked the scale of hate crime and prevented them from seeking legal recourse through the criminal justice system (CJS). This paper investigates whether agencies are working together effectively to tackle hate crime. Design/methodology/approach The research presented draws on semi-structured interviews with key informants who work with disabled people and organisations as part of a wider study on disability hate crime. Findings Prior to the Care Act, safeguarding practice often failed to prioritise criminal justice interventions when responding to reports of disability hate crimes. Improving engagement within multi-agency safeguarding hubs and boards has the potential to increase hate crime awareness and reporting. Research limitations/implications This research was limited in scope to 15 participants who worked in England within safeguarding teams or with victims of hate crime. Practical implications Raising the profile of disability hate crime within safeguarding teams could lead to achieving more effective outcomes for adults at risk: improving confidence in reporting, identifying perpetrators of hate crimes, enabling the CJS to intervene and reducing the risk of further targeted abuse on the victim or wider community. Originality/value This paper is original in its contribution in this field as there is a dearth of research on the relationship between safeguarding and disability hate crime.

show abstract

Restorative justice in safeguarding adults with hate crime and discriminatory abuse: exploring the evidence

Mason,

Dray,

Healy

et al. 2024

JAP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to consider what safeguarding responses to discriminatory abuse and hate crime might learn from existing research on restorative justice and to drive practice development based on available evidence. Design/methodology/approach This paper is based on a scoping review of literature using four academic databases and reference harvesting. This comprised a critical appraisal of 30 articles, which were thematically analysed to appreciate the benefits and challenges of restorative justice responses to hate crime and how this might inform safeguarding responses to discriminatory abuse and hate crime. Findings The analysis identifies four domains where learning can be drawn. These relate to theory on restorative justice; restorative justice practices; perspectives from lived experience of restorative justice and hate crime; and an appraisal of critiques about restorative justice. Originality/value This paper connects the emerging evidence on restorative criminal justice responses to hate crime to the “turn” towards strengths-based practices in adult safeguarding. Although this provides a fertile environment for embedding restorative practices, the authors argue certain precautions are required based on evidence from existing research on hate crime and restorative justice.

show abstract

Practitioner perspectives on service users experiences of targeted violence and hostility in mental health and adult safeguarding

Cited by 6 publications

References 29 publications

Discriminatory abuse: time to revive a forgotten form of abuse?

Discriminatory abuse: time to revive a forgotten form of abuse?

Missing links: safeguarding and disability hate crime responses

Restorative justice in safeguarding adults with hate crime and discriminatory abuse: exploring the evidence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About