Making any difference? Conceptualising the impact of safeguarding adults boards
| Pages | 21-34 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JAP-08-2019-0025 |
| Date | 25 November 2019 |
| Published date | 25 November 2019 |
| Author | Michael Preston-Shoot |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Vulnerable groups,Adult protection,Safeguarding,Sociology,Sociology of the family,Abuse |
Making any difference? Conceptualising
the impact of safeguarding adults boards
Michael Preston-Shoot
Abstract
Purpose –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.
Design/methodology/approach –The paper draws on definitions of impact from social work education,
healthcareand from university research, exploringtheir relevance for capturingdifferent types of dataregarding
the outcomes and impact of SAB activity.The paper also draws on frameworksfor the process of capturing
data and for implementing strategies designed to changepractice and develop adult safeguarding services.
Findings –The paperargues thatSABs have struggledto identify theirimpact and needto consider whattypes
of impactthey are seeking to demonstrate beforechoosing methodsof seeking to capturethat 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.
Research limitations/implications –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.
Practical implications –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.
Originality/value –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.
Keywords Accountability, Evidence, Audit, Impact, Outcomes, Safeguarding adults boards
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
The Children and Social Work Act 2017 has abolished Local Safeguarding Children Boards
(LSCBs), as constituted by the Children Act 2004. This legislative intervention followed the Wood
Review (2016) which concluded that LSCBs had been insufficiently effective. There had been a
lack of clarity about expectations of LSCBs, with dissonance amongst partner agencies
regarding accountability and the authority of the Boards. The review further concluded that the
duty to cooperate had proved insufficient to ensure a coherent and unified approach to
safeguarding children and that Boards were operating with an outdated (familial) model of the
scope of safeguarding.
Received 20 August 2019
Revised 12 October 2019
19 October 2019
Accepted 22 October 2019
The author is grateful to Christine
Cocker for introducing the author
to Normalisation Process Theory
and to Adi Cooper for commenting
on a draft of this paper.
Michael Preston-Shoot is
based at the Faculty of Health
and Social Sciences, University
of Bedfordshire, Luton, UK.
DOI 10.1108/JAP-08-2019-0025 VOL. 22 NO. 1 2020, pp. 21-34, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1466-8203
j
THE JOURNAL OF ADULT PROTECTION
j
PAG E 21
To continue reading
Request your trial