Discretion used to be considered a feature of individuals, but growing literature shows that it has collective features as well. To develop an understanding of the individual and cooperative work of inspectors in using discretion and the discretionary room granted to them, we compared two inspectorates: the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in England and the Joint Inspectorate for Youth (JIY) in the Netherlands. Our analysis reveals that inspectors engage with colleagues, managers, and stakeholders to include other perspectives, gain mandate, and broaden their repertoire. At the CQC, inspectors use their discretion collectively; on their own initiative, they involve others in balancing and interpreting rules to reach judgments. At the JIY, teamwork is central and regulatory teams are granted collective discretionary room. We argue that collective work permits both responsiveness and consistency. In studying the judgments of inspectors and other street-level bureaucrats, it is vital to look at collective work and how it combines consistency and responsiveness.

Using a classification of public policy developed by Matland, we examine implementation of policy on adult protection as outlined in 'No Secrets', the government's guidance to local agencies. This policy appears to exemplify a 'high-ambiguity/low-conflict' model. Detailed interviews with staff charged with developing multi-agency procedures, in local authority departments, health authorities, the police and the voluntary sector, confirmed the ambiguity of the policy and the uncertainty experienced by staff as a consequence. However, the interviews also revealed a number of areas of conflict, particularly as people gave precedence to their own professional norms and organizational priorities over partnership working.

This article reports the results of a survey of local authorities, which asked about progress in responding to the Department of Health guidance, No Secrets. The findings of the survey suggest that the majority of local authorities are taking action in response to the guidance. However, there is variation in progress with the different components of the framework for the protection of vulnerable adults outlined in No Secrets.

The parallels between child abuse and adult abuse have been frequently noted as public awareness of both has increased in recent decades. Both can involve the concealed victimisation of a weaker family member, for both interventions are difficult to implement because practitioners are loath to intrude into the privacy of the family and risk causing harm, and combating abuse of either type demands multi‐agency working. Significant differences between the two abuse constituencies have also been stressed, namely that adults are not invariably dependents reliant for care on the persons mistreating them and have the autonomy to resist efforts to intervene on their behalf.

No abstract