Making Safeguarding Personal: progress of English local authorities
| Date | 12 February 2018 |
| Published date | 12 February 2018 |
| Pages | 59-68 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JAP-09-2017-0032 |
| Author | Mike Briggs,Adi Cooper |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Vulnerable groups,Adult protection,Safeguarding,Sociology,Sociology of the family,Abuse |
Making Safeguarding Personal: progress
of English local authorities
Mike Briggs and Adi Cooper
Abstract
Purpose –The paper reports on the findings of a survey of 115 (76 per cent) of English local authorities in
2016 which compared progress on the implementation of the Making Safeguarding Personal (MSP)
approach in local authorities through their Adult Social Care departments and in relation to their area
Safeguarding Adults Boards (SABs) and partner organisations. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the
survey in relation to personalised social care and its impact on organisations, their staff and service users, and
conclude with wider implications and recommendations for further work.
Design/methodology/approach –A series of guided interviews were conducted with safeguarding leads
from a sample comprising of 115 (76 per cent) of English local authorities during May and June 2016.
The sample was randomly picked and balanced to give a fair representation of the different types of councils.
The interviews were conducted by a team of five people. All interviewers had in-depth experience of adult
safeguarding and were currently practicing independent chairs of SABs. The interviewers followed a
prepared schedule consisting of a mixture of open and closed questions. All interviews were held over the
phone and averaged one-hour duration.
Findings –The results pointed to the impression that the majority of local authorities had completed the first
step of introducing MSP, i.e. they had trained their workers and modified their systems. Most local authorities
were moving into the next phase of embedding user-focussed work into their practice and culture, and were
at various points along that journey. However, most had still to engage partner organisations beyond a mere
acceptance of MSP as “a good thing”.
Research limitations/implications –The research has wide ranging implications for organisations and
their workers in the field of adult safeguarding based on its findings. Its limitations are that only organisational
leaders and managers were interviewed, although reference is extensively made to initiatives that engage
service users. The authors acknowledged the possible bias of interviewees when judging the performance of
their own service and attempted to moderate their views in the final report.
Practical implications –The report references many practical implications to improve the practice of adult
safeguarding in an attempt to make it more person-centred. Examples of good practice are given and
recommendations are made to organisations.
Social implications –It is recognised that there are many people who may be at risk of harm through their
environmental, personal, age or disability-related situations. In improving the way that services respond to
their needs, they will be made to feel safer and their lives enhanced.
Originality/value –This original research follows up previous research in the preceding year. It is the widest
ranging in its coverage of 76 per cent of English local authorities. Its value is that it measures progress
towards full implementation of MSP; reports information and views from safeguarding leaders; and makes 20
recommendations to improve the implementation of MSP within local authorities, SABs and their partners.
Keywords Mental health, Social work, Personalization, Older people, Safeguarding,
Learning/intellectual disabilities, Legal, Neglect, Adult social care, Abuse
Paper type Research paper
Background
The Making Safeguarding Personal (MSP) programme has been running since 2010 (Lawson,
2017a, b,c, d) as a sector-led improvement. It was endorsed by the government in its statutory
guidance to the Care Act 2014 (Department of Health, 2017, chapter 14 S1.31) which described
it as “making safeguarding personal means it should be person-led and outcome-focussed.
Received 9 September 2017
Revised 6 December 2017
19 December 2017
Accepted 20 December 2017
The authors thank participating
local authorities for their help and
support in identifying respondents,
and Jane Lawson, Bill Hodson,
Moira Wilson for carrying out
interviews with respondents. The
authors would like to acknowledge
the University of East Anglia for
research method advice and data
collation, and ADASS and the LGA
for providing the funding for the
MSP Temperature Check 2016.
Mike Briggs is an Independent
Consultant at the MBMC
Services Ltd, York, UK.
Adi Cooper is a Visiting
Professor University of
Bedfordshire at the Consultant
in Adult Social Care and
Safeguarding, London, UK.
DOI 10.1108/JAP-09-2017-0032 VOL. 20 NO. 1 2018, pp. 59-68, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1466-8203
j
THE JOURNAL OF ADULT PROTECTION
j
PAG E 59
To continue reading
Request your trial