Ambiguity and Cooperation in the Implementation of Adult Protection Policy

Abstract

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.

Problems with the Term and Concept of 'Abuse': Critical Reflections on the Scottish Adult Support and Protection Study

“…This tends to raise concerns that adult protection policies are being implemented incompletely and in inconsistent ways (McCreadie et al, 2008;Parley, 2010;Taylor & Dodd, 2003). The suggestions of this paper have much in common with these findings, but also raise new questions about their implications.…”

“…Indeed, some campaigning groups have characterised the discourse as over-inclusive, patronising and discriminatory, demanding that it be curtailed (Disability Agenda Scotland, 2006;Inclusion Scotland, 2006). Meanwhile, interviews and focus groups with professionals charged with implementation reveal working definitions of "abuse" which are inconsistent and often narrower than policy definitions, for instance which exclude acts of omission, or unintentional harm, or particular types of perpetrator (McCreadie et al, 2008;Parley, 2010;Taylor & Dodd, 2003). This paper builds on these studies, as noted, by problematising the links which could be assumed between professional comfort or discomfort with the term and concept of "abuse", and the actual implications of this for an "adult protection" response.…”

“…Research into the nature of the task and its associated challenges has gathered pace in tandem. For instance, studies have examined the successes and challenges of partnership working in adult protection in England and Wales McCreadie et al, 2008;Penhale et al, 2007); the effectiveness of English and Welsh regulatory frameworks in adult protection (Penhale et al, 2007); the relationship of abuse to service environments and cultures (Cambridge, 1999;White et al, 2003); and the experience and knowledge of front-line staff with respect to protection policies (McCreadie et al, 2008;Northway et al, 2007;Rees & Manthorpe, 2010).…”

A different kind of practice? Meanings attached by practitioners to the idea of ‘adult protection’

“…However, other implied changes are more negatively framed. For instance, the increased use of risk assessment for the protection of workers as opposed to service users (McCreadie et al, 2008); increased risk aversion amongst support staff, which has "taken the humanity out of what we do" (Rees and Manthorpe, 2010, p.520); or the fear of being overwhelmed by bureaucratic requirements and/or the need to prioritise the investigation of allegations, in the context of multiple demands and finite resources (Brown and Keating, 1998;Rees and Manthorpe, 2010).…”

“…Over the same period, several research studies have investigated processes and barriers in the implementation of these policies and related procedures and guidelines (Brown and Keating, 1998;Hogg et al, 2009;Mathew et al, 2002;McCreadie et al, 2008;Northway et al, 2007). The focus of such studies has tended to lie elsewhere than the specific nature of the project of "adult protection/safeguarding" itself.…”