Renegotiating power in adult safeguarding: the role of advocacy
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JAP-09-2016-0023 |
| Date | 10 April 2017 |
| Pages | 78-91 |
| Published date | 10 April 2017 |
| Author | Sarah P. Lonbay,Toby Brandon |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Vulnerable groups,Adult protection,Safeguarding,Sociology,Sociology of the family,Abuse |
Renegotiating power in adult
safeguarding: the role of advocacy
Sarah P. Lonbay and Toby Brandon
Abstract
Purpose –The increased involvement of adults at risk in the safeguarding process has become a prominent
issue within English safeguarding policy. However, there is evidence to suggest that actual levels of
involvement are still low. The purpose of this paper is to present findings from a PhD study in relation to the
benefits of advocacy in supporting this involvement in adult safeguarding for older people.
Design/methodology/approach –Participants in the study included advocates and social workers
who had experience of working with older people through the safeguarding process within two North East
England local authorities. A critical realist approach through in-depth interviews was taken with all the
participants.
Findings –The research findings in relation to the benefits of advocacy in supporting older people going
through safeguarding processes are reported. The practical limitations and factors which help and hinder
advocacy support within the process are also considered. The theoretical implications for power,
empowerment, and advocacy are also explored.
Research limitations/implications –A key limitation of this research is that it did not include older people
who had been through safeguarding amongst the participants.
Practical implications –Key implications for practice and policy are discussed.
Originality/value –The paper provides an overview and critique of empowerment in adult safeguarding and
the role that advocates play in promoting this key principle.
Keywords Power, Empowerment, Advocacy, Older people, Safeguarding, Social work
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The involvement of adults at risk within safeguarding procedures has increasingly become a
focus within English safeguarding policy since the publication of “No Secrets”(DH, 2000).
This involvement is associated with the personalisation agenda which promotes the importance
of offering service users choice and control (Carr, 2012). However, the “top-down”approach of
this agenda has been criticised by some for its assumption that such autonomy is equally
accessible to all. Ellis and Preston-Shoot (2012, p. 168), for example, draw attention to the
“controlling”of information as a “means of enacting stereotyped judgements about capacity in
order to manage people’s access to direct payment”. Furthermore, those who may be
structurally or systemically excluded from accessing their rights as citizens within a political
climate of neoliberalism may struggle to access their rights to direct their own care and support
needs (Lloyd, 2010; Stewart, 2011). Within an older population this applies particularly to those
who may lack capacity to make some decisions around their care, although it may equally apply
to those who do not have the confidence or the knowledge to be able to do so (Lonbay, 2015).
These people in particular may benefit from advocacy support in bridging health and social
care services. Advocacy at its core is about engaging with people and helping them to increase
“their sense of power […] to feel more confident, to become more assertive and gain
increased choices”(Brandon et al., 1995, p. 1). However, within the remit of adult safeguarding,
there is some evidence to suggest that advocacy involvement is limited (Irvine et al., 2013;
Manthorpe and Martineau, 2010).
Received 21 September 2016
Revised 23 January 2017
13 February 2017
Accepted 15 February 2017
Sarah P. Lonbay is a Senior
Lecturer in Advocacy and
Engagement and
Toby Brandon is a Reader in
Mental Health and Disability,
both at the Faculty of Health
and Life Sciences,
Department of Social Work and
Communities, Northumbria
University, Newcastle
Upon Tyne, UK.
PAG E 78
j
THE JOURNAL OF ADULT PROTECTION
j
VOL. 19 NO. 2 2017, pp. 78-91, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1466-8203 DOI 10.1108/JAP-09-2016-0023
To continue reading
Request your trial