<i>No Secrets:</i> No Excuse

Manthorpe, Jill

doi:10.1108/14769018200100026

Cited by 2 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Discriminatory abuse was added as a distinct category of abuse “relatively late” in the work of the “No Secrets” steering group (Brown, 2000, p. 17) as a surprising “rights-based intervention” (Manthorpe, 2001, p. 5). Despite reporting on “No Secrets”, Brown (2000) introduces her own definition which diverges from the interpersonal approach of the “No Secrets” guidance and instead emphasises rights and citizenship.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, successive cuts to adult social care have stretched resources to enable such personalised responses, and this has had a significant impact on older people and people with disabilities (Glasby et al , 2021). While discriminatory abuse was initially hailed as a rights-based intervention (Manthorpe, 2001), decades of austerity have fractured the potential of services to work in an anti-discriminatory way (Healy, 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Discriminatory abuse: time to revive a forgotten form of abuse?

Mason

Sasidharan

Cooper

et al. 2022

JAP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Discriminatory abuse has been a distinct category of abuse in safeguarding adults policy since 2000, but it is rarely used in practice, according to recent official statistics. As part of a larger project, the authors undertook a literature review to clarify the concept, explore reasons for low reporting and consider recommendations for practice. The purpose of this paper is to present the findings of this literature review. Design/methodology/approach This literature review comprises 35 sources, which were identified using three academic databases, reference harvesting and sector-specific websites. Findings were developed through thematic analysis of the data. Findings The literature review demonstrates that definitions of discriminatory abuse stretch from an interpersonal emphasis in policy documents to a more structural approach. There are open questions about the status of discriminatory abuse as a category of abuse due to the complicated interface between discriminatory motivations and the abusive acts through which they are experienced. A range of factors can obscure its identification, particularly the hidden, stigmatised and normalised nature of discriminatory abuse. Some recommendations for practice are identified, but more work is needed to develop the practice vocabulary and required skills. Originality/value This study brings together existing research on discriminatory abuse to argue that it is time to revive this understanding of abuse and develop safeguarding practice with adults who have protected characteristics.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Discriminatory abuse: time to revive a forgotten form of abuse?

Mason

Sasidharan

Cooper

et al. 2022

JAP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The use of Fricker’s epistemic injustice provides a framework to better understand the politico-moral consequences of under-reporting or limited practice engagement with the category of discriminatory abuse. Ultimately, Manthorpe’s (2001) heralding of the rights-based inclusion of discriminatory abuse in “No Secrets” needs revisiting and underscoring based on a more inclusive approach to dynamics of discrimination beyond interpersonal abuse and intervention strategies that orient practice in this direction that emphasises social, structural and contextual practices. In this way, safeguarding work can aspire to enable people to make sense of any experiences of being targeted based on their protected characteristics.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The listed protected characteristics from the Equality Act 2010 offer safeguarding practitioners an opportunity to challenge any abuse of adults with care and support needs that is motivated by diverse forms of discrimination. On this basis, the category was heralded as a “rights-based” intervention (Manthorpe, 2001) when it first appeared in the now-defunct “No Secrets” guidance (Department of Health and Social Care, 2000). However, current concerns about very low reporting rates and definitional obscurity have raised questions about the category’s rights-affirming potential (Mason et al , 2022).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Harassment and slurs or epistemic injustice? Interrogating discriminatory abuse through safeguarding adult review analysis

Mason

2023

JAP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to interrogate and develop the conceptualisation of discriminatory abuse in safeguarding adults policy and practice beyond the current interpersonal definition. The paper draws on Safeguarding Adults Reviews (SARs) that refer to discriminatory abuse or safeguarding practice with adults who have care and support needs and protected characteristics. Design/methodology/approach A search of the national network repository of SARs identified 27 published reviews for inclusion. The contents were thematically analysed to understand how discrimination was experienced in these cases. Fricker’s “Epistemic Injustice” theory was adopted as a conceptual framework, informing the analysis of findings. Findings Evidence from SARs provides a challenge to the interpersonal emphasis on language and behaviour in national policy. Although the reviews acknowledge that interpersonal abuse occurs, a close reading spotlights practitioner and institutional bias, and inattention to social, structural and contextual factors. The silence on these matters in policy provides a narrow frame for interpreting such abuse. This suggests significant potential for epistemic injustice and signals a need to acknowledge these social, structural and contextual factors in safeguarding practice. Originality/value Discriminatory abuse is an under-researched and under-utilised category of abuse in safeguarding adults practice. The paper adopts Fricker’s theory of “Epistemic Injustice” to highlight the silencing potential of current policy approaches to discriminatory abuse to suggest a more inclusive and structural framing for safeguarding practice with those targeted due to their protected characteristics.

show abstract

No Secrets: No Excuse

Abstract: The Department of Health's guidance on adult protection requires a response from local agencies. The Chair of a local multi‐agency group on adult protection discusses the communication systems and resources required.

Cited by 2 publications

References 2 publications

Discriminatory abuse: time to revive a forgotten form of abuse?

Discriminatory abuse: time to revive a forgotten form of abuse?

Harassment and slurs or epistemic injustice? Interrogating discriminatory abuse through safeguarding adult review analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About