The governance of adult safeguarding: findings from research

Abstract

Purpose -This article reports 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.Design -The study comprised a systematic search and thematic analysis of Englishlanguage literature on adult safeguarding governance, a survey of Safeguarding Adults Board documentation, and key informant interviews and workshops with professionals involved in adult protection.Findings -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.Research limitations/implications -The research focus was England, and thus does not incorporate learning from other jurisdictions. Whilst the research scrutinised the extent to which Boards practise empowerment, service users and carers were 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.Practical implications -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.Value -The benchmarking framework will enable Safeguarding Adults Boards to audit, evaluate and further develop a range of robust governance arrangements.

Governance in adult safeguarding in Scotland since the implementation of the Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Act 2007

“…Further material was sought through a systematic search of the literature, although little of direct relevance -that is, regarding Scottish adult safeguarding policy and practice since 2007 -was found. Consequently, references are made where relevant to literature addressing the rest of the UK -in particular Braye et al's (2012) paper reporting research on adult safeguarding governance in England -and Scotland experience before the implementation of the Act. For clarity this paper refers to English Safeguarding Adults Boards (SABs) to differentiate them from the Scottish APCs.…”

“…Mackay (2008) has suggested that comparative studies within the UK could improve understanding of this area of law and practice. While recognising that social services in Scotland have a somewhat different history and character from provision in the rest of the UK (Brodie et al, 2008;Watson and West, 2008), with any parallels therefore being drawn with care, this article will offer findings about governance of adult safeguarding in Scotland and compare these with outcomes derived from a study in England (Braye et al, 2012).…”

Did anyone notice the transformation of adult social care? An analysis of Safeguarding Adult Board Annual Reports

“…The first investigated partnerships and regulation in adult protection (Penhale et al, 2007) and identified wide variation in the status and operations of Boards (also referred to as Committees). This study found that Boards were largely dependent on middle managers in local agencies to get adult protection systems working effectively (Manthorpe, Hussein, et al, 2010) More recently, a Department of Health commissioned study was conducted by Braye, Orr and Preston Shoot (2011) on adult safeguarding governance. This provided valuable insights into the work of Boards and their potential effectiveness.…”

“…This provided valuable insights into the work of Boards and their potential effectiveness. Braye et al (2011) compiled a list of characteristics that had featured in audit, inspectorate and other similar reports which gave rise to commendations or a 'positive review on the safeguarding element of inspections ' (p14). What might be termed quality indicators included an 'informative annual report' although this was last in the long list of the characteristics identified by Braye et al (2011).…”

“…Braye et al (2011) compiled a list of characteristics that had featured in audit, inspectorate and other similar reports which gave rise to commendations or a 'positive review on the safeguarding element of inspections ' (p14). What might be termed quality indicators included an 'informative annual report' although this was last in the long list of the characteristics identified by Braye et al (2011). They noted that the annual report is often a means of giving an account of the Board's work and thus 'serving some of the functions of accountability arrangements ' (p14), describing the function of an annual report as being to provide details of the work undertaken and the number of adult safeguarding referrals received and investigated by partner agencies.…”