Safeguarding and personal budgets: the experiences of adults at risk
| Published date | 30 May 2019 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JAP-12-2018-0030 |
| Date | 30 May 2019 |
| Pages | 157-168 |
| Author | Fiona Aspinal,Martin Stevens,Jill Manthorpe,John Woolham,Kritika Samsi,Kate Baxter,Shereen Hussein,Mohamed Ismail |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care |
Safeguarding and personal budgets:
the experiences of adults at risk
Fiona Aspinal, Martin Stevens, Jill Manthorpe, John Woolham, Kritika Samsi, Kate Baxter,
Shereen Hussein and Mohamed Ismail
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to present findings from one element of a study exploring the
relationship between personalisation, in the form of personal budgets (PBs) for publicly funded social care
and safeguarding.
Design/methodology/approach –Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 people receiving
PBs who had recently been the focus of a safeguarding investigation. Participants were recruited from two
English local authority areas and data were subject to thematic analysis.
Findings –The analysis identified three main themes: levels of information and awareness; safeguarding
concerns and processes; and choice and control. Many of the participants in this small study described
having experienced multiple forms of abuse or neglect concurrently or repeatedly over time.
Research limitations/implications –This was a small scale, qualitative study, taking place in two local
authorities. The small number of participants may have had strong opinions which may or may not have been
typical. However, the study provides some rich data on people’s experiences.
Practical implications –The findings suggest that adults receiving PBs may need information on an
ongoing and repeated basis together with advice on how to identify and address poor quality care that they
are arranging for themselves. Practitioners need to be aware of the influence of the level of information
received and the interaction of organisational or legal requirements when responding to safeguarding
concerns when care being supplied tries to reflect the benefits of choice and control.
Originality/value –This paper reports original research asking adults with care and support needs about the
interaction between two key policies of safeguarding and personalisation.
Keywords Safeguarding, Personalization, Abuse, Direct payments, Cash-for-care, Personal budgets
Paper type Research paper
Background
Personalisatio n and safeguarding policies have led to major changes in social care prac tice in
England over the last 20 years. Personalisation aims to enhance independence, choice
and control by tailoring support to individual needs (SCIE, 2012) and providing individuals with
more choice about the type and timing of help they receive and about who provides it.
These policy developments were equally driven by a desire to reduce state involvement,
minimise public expenditure, and to increase marketisation of the social care
sector (Stevens et al., 2011; Daly, 2012). This drive to reduce the welfare state was
accompanied by a transfer of some risks from the government to individual adults and their
families (Whitfield, 2014).
Adult safeguarding is the term used in England to describe the principles and procedures
through which ”adults at risk of harm”(terminology introduced with the HM Government 2014)
have their rights protected and risks of harm addressed. While local councils with social
services responsibilities (hereafter referred to as local authorities) have lead responsibility
for safeguardin g, this is shared ac ross statutory or ganisations suc h as the NHS and
police services.
Received 18 December 2018
Revised 26 April 2019
Accepted 8 May 2019
The authors would like to thank all
the people who gave their time to
take part in an interview for this
study. This study was funded by
the National Institute for Health
Research (NIHR) School of Social
Care Research (SSCR) (Ref: T976/
EM/KCL2). The views expressed
are those of the authors and not
necessarily of the NIHR, School for
Social Care Research, Department
of Health and Social Care or the
NHS. FA is currently supported by
the NIHR Collaboration for
Leadership in Applied Health
Research and Care (CLAHRC)
North Thames.
Fiona Aspinal is based at the
Department of Applied Health
Research, UCL, London, UK.
Martin Stevens, Jill Manthorpe,
John Woolham and Kritika
Samsi are all based at the
Social Care Workforce
Research Unit, King’s College
London, London, UK.
Kate Baxter is based at the
Social Policy Research Unit,
University of York, York, UK.
Shereen Hussein is based at
the Personal Social Services
Research Unit, University of
Kent, Canterbury, UK.
Mohamed Ismail is based at the
Analytical Research Ltd,
Woking, UK.
DOI 10.1108/JAP-12-2018-0030 VOL. 21 NO. 3 2019, pp. 157-168, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1466-8203
j
THE JOURNAL OF ADULT PROTECTION
j
PAG E 15 7
To continue reading
Request your trial