35 Safeguarding Adults Boards
This clause requires a local authority to establish a Safeguarding Adults Board (SAB), to bring together key organisations in an area with functions relevant to adult safeguarding. Further details about SABs are set out in Schedule 1.
(1) Each local authority must establish a Safeguarding Adults Board (an “SAB”) for its area.
(2) The objective of an SAB is to help and protect adults in its area in cases of the kind described in section 34(1).
(3) The way in which an SAB must seek to achieve its objective is by co-ordinating
and ensuring the effectiveness of what each of its members does.
(4) An SAB may do anything which appears to it to be necessary or desirable for the purpose of achieving its objective.
(5) Schedule 1 (which includes provision about the membership, strategy and annual report of an SAB) has effect.
(6) Two or more local authorities may exercise their respective duties under subsection (1) by establishing an SAB for their combined area; and, where they do so, in this section, section 36 and Schedule 1—
(a) a reference to the authority establishing the SAB is to be read as a reference to the authorities establishing it, and
(b) a reference to the SAB’s area is a reference to the combined area.
Fully support this clause.
I am a Registered Nurse, care provider and also an expert adult safeguarding trainer.
I am concerned about the breadth of 35(4). This seems to give authority to intervene regardless of the wishes of the individual Vulnerable Adult. This should explicitly state the right of any person to refuse the intervention of a local authority, provided the adult has the capacity to do so, even if this decision may appear unwise or eccentric
It is good to see this clause but there needs to be clarity over the objective – “help and protect adults” – and the range, as Robin noted. What powers (if any are relevant), responsibilities and obligations will SABs have placed on them? What if there is a lack of co-operation from members?
Am interested to usnerdtand the change of terminology here. Why safeguarding adults reviews and not Safeguarding Adults serious case reviews? The Government did not explain this in their response to the Law commission proposals. In this field we all talk of SCRs, and some areas also have other methods of learning lessons, without the expense of an SCR, where it is less serious but lessons would be valuable. Are the Government trying to include the possibility of other types of learning the lessons reviews? Or is it a terminology change by mistake?
How will the SAB be funded – this is not clear. My view is there should be some direction as to the contribution of partner agencies to the functioning of the SAB – funding / resources. If this is not made clear then SAB could have membership but no commitment to financial support.
Clause 4 – ‘SAB may do anything which appears to be necessary……’ is woefully vague and lacking in direction.
There are key activities the SAB should undertake – validating – delivering and reporting on training and the development of joint policies and procedures.
There is a real risk that this vagueness will lead to local variation in SABs based on finance and the willingness or unwillingness of partner agencies to participate in the SAB.
Introduction.
The East Riding of Yorkshire Safeguarding Adults Board held a multi agency/multi disciplinary consultation event which also included service user representatives and carers on 26th September 12. The event focussed on those aspects of the Care & Support Bill relating to safeguarding ‘Adults at Risk’ and also took the opportunity to seek views on the new ‘Safeguarding Power’. The below responses reflect the general debate and the main points from the small group work that took place.
Section 35-Structure of Adult Safeguarding Boards
Overall feedback was very positive on placing Safeguarding Adults Boards on a statutory footing however it was felt that the framing of the section on who should be a member lacked the necessary detail to ensure all partners engaged in the process. It was felt that this was particularly important as agencies restructure and refocus their core business during the current financial challenges.
It was strongly articulated that there must be some acknowledgement in the legislation in respect of finances and what responsibilities being a member of the board brings. It was acknowledged that this would be difficult but without it this section of the legislation did not add any value to that which already takes place in nearly all areas of the country.
Summary of Group Feedback
• Very supportive of Boards being Statutory as they need to have equal priority to Safeguarding Children Boards.
• All key agencies need to be explicitly identified so there is no opt out – like Safeguarding Children Boards.
• Needs to be clear about constitution, aims and objectives, roles and responsibilities etc – like Safeguarding Children Boards.
• LA remains the main funder, it needs to also be very clear about funding contributions – from all statutory agencies and perhaps from others on a proportionate basis (not voluntary sector).
• Some earmarked central/government funding could be identified.
• Essential now to have Clinical Commissioning Group involvement, not delegated but someone with senior responsibility.
• NHS involvement must be more explicit – CCGs, NHS Commissioning Board, GP’s, Providers and Ambulance service etc to include every layer/type of health input to the individual as they all have a role in safeguarding.
• Role of Public Health/Health Needs Assessment/Health and Wellbeing Boards.
• Needs to identify clearly how lay members such as ‘carers’ are to be represented.
• Data collection is an issue. Needs to be clarity about what data is collected about adult safeguarding, numbers, types etc and how this is used. What is presented to Boards etc? This could become a bigger resource issue.
• Reporting of safeguarding incidents is not universal. There needs to be something about what, how, when to report in procedures and in training and SABs should ensure it happens.
• Independent Chair – must be entirely independent/LAY person.
Schedule 1
The Safeguarding Adults Board Annual Report should be sent to the local Community Safety Partnership as well as the Health & Wellbeing Board and others.
The NHS Local Area team should also be represented on the SAB as they are on the LSCB.
Re Schedule 1 relating to Clause 35: I propose that housing is added to the list of members – ie a rep from council housing providers, AND a rep from Registered Providers (aka housing associations/RLSs) of social housing.
SABs should take the strategic lead to integrate housing into safeguarding approaches and responses. A key argument for this is emerging from adult Serious Case Reviews such as the one concerning Gemma Hayter. The SCR commented that ‘current systems are often targeted at public sector procedures when in fact direct support staff from smaller vol orgs are often the ones who will pick up the low level triggers’ and ‘there was a lack of oversight or clear coordination between housing support services and other adult social care services’. Similarly, Manthorpe and Martineau’s research (2009) quoted a SAB member’s positive comments on a SCR,that had led to new thinking about information sharing and housing having found that housing had information they did not share. This echoes Fish, Munro and Bairstow’s SCIE report (2008) which commented on a tenancy support worker who found it hard to articulate her concerns and to get them taken seriously. And Margaret Flynn’s follow up report re the SCR concerning Steven Hoskin (2009) noted that ‘housing support officers were not seen as professional by social care colleagues eg one was an alerter with a lot of understanding of the situation but asked to leave a (strategy) meeting’.
This lack of integration of housing into safeguarding needs to be tackled strategically by SABs, not just left to local ‘champions’.
I agree with the comments from East Riding above. Key agencies should be identified. At the current time, the legislation fails to identify whether voluntary sector representation is included. I feel this is very important. Not involving the sector can lead to a two-tier system where vcs providers of services fail to be identified and supported to meet their safeguarding responsibilities. For example, in one local authority area until recently, independent care home providers were able to access free local authority safeguarding training from which voluntary groups were explicitly excluded. I would also like to see more about advocacy in this section, particularly the role of independent advocacy in prevention of abuse within residential homes.
Section 35 – The Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE) welcomes the proposal that Safeguarding Adults Boards (SABs) are placed on a mandatory footing, so that even in times of financial retrenchment, safeguarding adults remains a multi-disciplinary priority. The flexibility allowed for local authorities to come together under one SAB we can see makes sense in certain areas, such as where a small unitary authority and a surrounding county council come together. Based on SCIE’s experience working across England with Local Children’s Safeguarding Boards (LCSBs) and SABs, we think there would need to be evidence for effective local decision-making and accountability if SABs were established that represented a large number of local authority areas.
This is a welcome development. However, in their present form, diversity rather than uniformity is the dominant characteristic of SABs, and the vagueness of the above this is likely to continue to be the case.
One of the key issues for SABs is the consistency of partner involvement at the decision making level of authority but it is unclear that such a vaguely defined membership and responsibilities will address this issue even in a statutory board. There is also no reference to the independence of the Board Chair and we would welcome some evidence based guidance on this.
Although the Independent Chairs of SABs are a growing breed, there is no evidence-based rationale for having such roles. How “independent” can such Chairs be if they are paid by a single agency? Vertical mechanisms of governance prevail with the representatives of individual agencies making up SAB membership reporting to their own Boards. There is little sense that the reporting process takes account of the areas where work interlinks and impacts on other sectors. Local authority employee Chairs (generally at Assistant Director or Director level) report to their senior managers. The employee Chairs have an investment in collaboration and maintaining positive working relationships which may lead to a more conciliatory stance than that adopted by independent Chairs. The latter are disadvantaged by not knowing the identities of the movers and shakers for example. Can independent Chairs be confident that they are picking up and being briefed on crucial soft intelligence? The turnover of SAB personnel is a concern which spans both children’s and adults’ Boards. The police reposition key staff every couple of years and senior NHS representation remains an aspiration rather than a reality for most SABs. The “life expectancy” of individual Board members has implications for partnerships and expectations concerning long term planning. It is a preoccupation of many SABs since turnover tears at the fabric of interagency working.
It should be noted that the Interim Advice from the NHS Commissioning Board states that:
Local authorities will continue to be the lead statutory organisations for safeguarding, but with some new resources and levers. In particular, the creation of health and wellbeing boards and the integration of public health with local government.
This does not address the financial resource deficit of SABs when compared to that of children’s safeguarding boards.
The Partnership warmly welcomes the requirement for Adult Safeguarding Boards to become mandatory, and hopes that this new statutory requirement is consequently adequately and transparently resourced by additional funding from central government.
We believe that the remit should be expanded to include reference to cover the prevention of abuse and neglect.
Overall we endorse the tone and thrust of the Draft Care and Support Bill and we strongly support the move to give people who need support the choice and control required so that they are in control of their support and their lives.
However we are extremely concerned that some sections of the Bill will be used in a way that is counter to the choice and control agenda and have the potential to put many people in a situation where they have less control than they presently enjoy.
Although we appreciate that the guidance that will be produced will ensure that the choice and control agenda is promoted we still believe that there is a need to change some sections of the Bill as it stands in the Draft form.
Overall we endorse the tone and thrust of the Draft Care and Support Bill and we strongly support the move to give people who need support the choice and control required so that they are in control of their support and their lives.
However we are extremely concerned that some sections of the Bill will be used in a way that is counter to the choice and control agenda and have the potential to put many people in a situation where they have less control than they presently enjoy.
Although we appreciate that the guidance that will be produced will ensure that the choice and control agenda is promoted we still believe that there is a need to change some sections of the Bill as it stands in the Draft form.
35 Safeguarding Adults Boards; (4)
This is a ‘blank cheque’ of power being given to SAB’s and believe this is dangerous and could be counterproductive to an individual’s need to stay in control of their lives.
Therefore we would like to see this removed from the Bill.
Self direct is a membership organisation and its members provide support for over 108,000 people across the UK. The views expressed in this response do not necessarily reflect the views of all self direct members.
The views expressed above are based on our experience of seeing firsthand how legislation and guidance are used; experienced gathered through working with 1,000s of professionals / practitioners across the social and health care sector whose job it is to put Government policy, legislation and guidance into practice. It is also based on our extensive knowledge and understanding of how people that need support and their carers interact with professionals / practitioners in the social and health care sector.