Making Safeguarding Personal: progress of English local authorities

Abstract

Purpose The paper reports on the findings of a survey of 115 (76 per cent) of English local authorities in 2016 which compared progress on the implementation of the Making Safeguarding Personal (MSP) approach in local authorities through their Adult Social Care departments and in relation to their area Safeguarding Adults Boards (SABs) and partner organisations. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the survey in relation to personalised social care and its impact on organisations, their staff and service users, and conclude with wider implications and recommendations for further work. Design/methodology/approach A series of guided interviews were conducted with safeguarding leads from a sample comprising of 115 (76 per cent) of English local authorities during May and June 2016. The sample was randomly picked and balanced to give a fair representation of the different types of councils. The interviews were conducted by a team of five people. All interviewers had in-depth experience of adult safeguarding and were currently practicing independent chairs of SABs. The interviewers followed a prepared schedule consisting of a mixture of open and closed questions. All interviews were held over the phone and averaged one-hour duration. Findings The results pointed to the impression that the majority of local authorities had completed the first step of introducing MSP, i.e. they had trained their workers and modified their systems. Most local authorities were moving into the next phase of embedding user-focussed work into their practice and culture, and were at various points along that journey. However, most had still to engage partner organisations beyond a mere acceptance of MSP as “a good thing”. Research limitations/implications The research has wide ranging implications for organisations and their workers in the field of adult safeguarding based on its findings. Its limitations are that only organisational leaders and managers were interviewed, although reference is extensively made to initiatives that engage service users. The authors acknowledged the possible bias of interviewees when judging the performance of their own service and attempted to moderate their views in the final report. Practical implications The report references many practical implications to improve the practice of adult safeguarding in an attempt to make it more person-centred. Examples of good practice are given and recommendations are made to organisations. Social implications It is recognised that there are many people who may be at risk of harm through their environmental, personal, age or disability-related situations. In improving the way that services respond to their needs, they will be made to feel safer and their lives enhanced. Originality/value This original research follows up previous research in the preceding year. It is the widest ranging in its coverage of 76 per cent of English local authorities. Its value is that it measures progress towards full implementation of MSP; reports information and views from safeguarding leaders; and makes 20 recommendations to improve the implementation of MSP within local authorities, SABs and their partners.

Safeguarding and personal budgets: the experiences of adults at risk

“…This suggests that promises of choice and control should not be over-stated. This study took place before the widespread roll-out of Making Safeguarding Personal (MSP) in England (an initiative that promotes a greater emphasis on achieving the outcomes that the person wants) (see Briggs and Cooper, 2018). New research would be helpful in understanding how MSP approaches are potentially changing such conversations.…”

Missing links: safeguarding and disability hate crime responses

“…Strategic aims of shifting to a partnership and empowerment focus where the person and the outcomes they want to achieve are prioritised, are becoming embedded more firmly into practice through Making Safeguarding Personal (Briggs and Cooper, 2018). Academics and practitioners recognise changes introduced by the Act require significant cultural and procedural adaptions in both strategic and operational process across agencies (Butler and Manthorpe, 2016;Cooper and Bruin, 2017) This paper acknowledges social workers and safeguarding teams may continue to face ongoing challenges between the need to safeguard potential victims from abuse and at the same time support individual's rights to independence, choice and social inclusion (Fyson and Kitson, 2010).…”

Implementation of the Making Safeguarding Personal Approach to Strengths-based Adult Social Care: Systematic Review of Qualitative Research Evidence

“…The assessed quality of the MSP studies is shown in our Supplementary Appendix. Two were assessed as being of overall 'good' quality (Hopkinson et al, 2015;Cooper et al, 2016Cooper et al, , 2018Briggs and Cooper, 2018), with the others judged as 'poor'. All provided a clear research question and used appropriate study designs to answer them, while recruiting an adequate sample from an appropriate population.…”

“…Five studies highlighted the importance of 'cosmopolitanism' (an organisation's level of connectedness with other care and support organisations) in implementation processes (Lawson et al, 2014;Pike and Walsh, 2015;Cooper et al, 2016Cooper et al, , 2018Briggs and Cooper, 2018;Lawson, 2018). Good inter-council collaboration and linking in with multi-agency partners were identified as factors facilitating implementation of MSP.…”

“…care homes, the NHS, community and acute services) also positively influenced the implementation process (Pike and Walsh, 2015). Four studies highlighted key underlying factors associated with strong networking and communication between and within organisations (Pike and Walsh, 2015;Butler and Manthorpe, 2016;Cooper et al, 2016;Lawson, 2018;Briggs and Cooper, 2018). These included individual relationships between social workers and others, involvement of MSP champions and support from organisations such as Safeguarding Adults Boards.…”