Social workers’ power of entry in adult safeguarding concerns: debates over autonomy, privacy and protection
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JAP-04-2017-0020 |
| Pages | 312-322 |
| Date | 11 December 2017 |
| Published date | 11 December 2017 |
| Author | Martin Stevens,Stephen Martineau,Jill Manthorpe,Caroline Norrie |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Vulnerable groups,Adult protection,Safeguarding,Sociology,Sociology of the family,Abuse |
Social workers’power of entry in adult
safeguarding concerns: debates over
autonomy, privacy and protection
Martin Stevens, Stephen Martineau, Jill Manthorpe and Caroline Norrie
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to explore debates about the powers social workers may need to
undertake safeguarding enquiries where access to the adult is denied.
Design/methodology/approach –The paper takes as a starting point a scoping review of the literature
undertaken as part of a study exploring social work responses to situations where they are prevented from
speaking to an adult at risk by a third party.
Findings –A power of entry might be one solution to situations where social workers are prevented from
accessing an adult at risk. The paper focuses on the Scottish approach to legal powers in adult safeguarding,
established by the Adult Support and Protection Act (Scotland) 2007 and draws out messages for adult
safeguarding in England and elsewhere. The literature review identified that debates over the Scottish
approach are underpinned by differing conceptualisations of vulnerability, autonomy and privacy, and the
paper relates these conceptualisations to different theoretical stances.
Social implications –The paper concludes that the literature suggests that a more socially mediated rather
than an essentialist understanding of the concepts of vulnerability, autonomy and privacy allows for more
nuanced approaches to social work practice in respect of using powers of entry and intervention with adults
at risk who have capacity to make decisions.
Originality/value –This paper provides a novel perspective on debates over how to overcome challenges to
accessing adults at risk in adult safeguarding through an exploration of understandings of vulnerability,
privacy and autonomy.
Keywords Safeguarding, Vulnerability, Autonomy, Privacy, Social work, Duties, Powers of entry
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
In many cultures, the concept of private property is connected with notions of citizenship and
political identity (Blomley, 2015). Blomley argues that property is also linked to privacy and
creates an obvious boundary of the private realm. However, in all countries of the UK and in many
other countries, some state agents (including social workers in certain circumstances) have
powers to enter a person’s property without consent (Home Office, 2014), even though this
overrides rights which are closely linked with citizenship (Big Brother Watch, 2015).
In England, under s42 of the English Care Act 2014, local authorities have a duty to enquire
where a safeguarding concern is raised in relation to an adult with care and support needs.
National statutory guidance (Department of Health, 2016, para 14.94) states that professionals
need to be able to talk with the adult at risk as a key part of safeguarding enquiries. However, in
some situations social workers may find it hard or impossible to gain access to the adult at risk,
perhaps because third parties either refuse access to the home or do not make it possible to talk
to the adult at risk in private. We term these as “hinder situations”for the purposes of this paper.
There are strongly held views voiced about the risks of over-intrusion in family and private life
when considering the introduction of such powers. Prior to the Care Act 2014 being enacted, the
Received 27 April 2017
Revised 20 August 2017
27 September 2017
29 September 2017
Accepted 2 October 2017
Martin Stevens is a Senior
Research Fellow,
Stephen Martineau is a
Research Associate,
Jill Manthorpe is a Professor
and Caroline Norrie is a
Research Fellow, all at the
Social Care Workforce
Research Unit, King’s College
London, London, UK.
PAGE312
j
THE JOURNAL OF ADULT PROTECTION
j
VOL. 19 NO. 6 2017, pp. 312-322, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1466-8203 DOI 10.1108/JAP-04-2017-0020
To continue reading
Request your trial