No Secrets, also known coequally as Adult Safeguarding, is a UK Government
publication from the Department of Health which provides guidance on
developing and implementing multi-agency policies and procedures to protect
adults "at risk" from harm abuse. The Department of Health website states
that This document gives guidance to local
agencies who have a responsibility to investigate and take action when a
vulnerable adult is believed to be suffering abuse. It offers a structure
and content for the development of local inter-agency policies, procedures and
joint protocols which will draw on good practice nationally and locally.
History of No Secrets The No Secrets and In Safe Hands
documents were issued as guidance in 2000, under section 7 of the Local
Authority Social Services Act 1970. Section 7 guidance does not carry the
same status as legislation; instead local authorities have their compliance
assessed as part of a statutory inspection process. With ‘good reason’ a
local authority can ignore such guidance, but may be called to justify
their actions on judicial review. When a referral is made to the local
authority under adult protection / safeguarding, the case is allocated to a
qualified social worker or specially trained care manager to undertake and
investigate the allegation of abuse. The investigation can be a single agency led
investigation, often led by the social worker or care manager or multi agency
led, either with another statutory body such as the police, trading standards or
a healthcare professional. Training of safeguarding social workers
There is no current national guidance or minimal standards relating to the
training of social workers in the UK who investigate Adult Protection / Adult
Safeguarding matters. However, in 2011, Keele University developed a Masters
Degree in Adult Safeguarding. The MA in Safeguarding Adults: Law, Policy and
Practice is offered by the School of Law.
Recent adult protection failures There have been several notable cases
where severe harm and even death have occurred as a result of local agencies
not acting in accordance with the "No Secrets" guidelines such as the murder
of a young man with learning difficulties. The Cornwall Adult
protection committee serious case review into Mr Hoskins death referred to No
Secrets saying "What is striking about the responses of services to Steven’s
circumstances is that each agency focused on single issues within their
own sectional remits and did not make the connections deemed necessary for the
protection of vulnerable adults and proposed by No Secrets".
Reasons for such failures The main reason for these and other
failings (Stafford Hospital scandal, Margaret Panting, are the fact that
these are the only Government documents addressing the development of
multi-disciplinary structures for adult protection, and they are only
guidelines. although the Association of Directors of Social Services brought
out what was essentially a best practice guide called ‘Safeguarding Adults' in
2005. Existing legislation only relates to paid social care. The majority of
abuse happens in people’s own homes, often perpetrated by family, friends or
neighbors. The majority of elder abuse occurs within the community, and
specifically within people’s own homes and is often perpetrated by family
members and relatives. In legislative terms however the primary thrust of
Government protective policy has focused upon the much smaller number of people
in receipt of social care, and this has been regulated primarily through the
Care Standards Act 2000 and more latterly the Safeguarding Vulnerable
Groups Act 2006. Abuse within the community, unless perpetrated by paid
domiciliary workers, is addressed through the No Secrets guidance.
= More reasons for failure = The guidance has been effective in
facilitating the creation of some form of adult protection system in all local
authority areas, it has failed to deliver on a number of important issues,
e.g.there is a lack of consistency and equality across areas in terms of the
construction and level of adult protection systems provided, there is
variable collaboration across statutory agencies, there are significant funding
and staffing deficiencies in many areas, there is no consistency in the timing
and duration of investigations, and there is no power to ensure access to
victims, or to ensure safe outcomes. Lack of legislative underpinning - major
reason for the inconsistent application of the ‘No Secrets’ guidance.
?Organizations and individuals firstly do what is legally required of them, and
only as a secondary activity consider those matters that fall into the
category of a ‘statutory power’ i.e. what they are authorized but not
compelled to do. It is argued that there is insufficient funding, and Adult
protection work minimal. Some statutory agencies may invest what is necessary to
maintain a skeleton response, with other agencies perceiving the work to be
optional. = Final criticisms and a proposed way
forward = Another criticism is personalisation
-empowering people’s choice and control over care through the provision of
direct payments or individual budgets – no effective safeguards being
pre-planned or proposed -by accepting a personalisation package someone loses
the automatic safeguards of the Care Standards Act 2000 and the Safeguarding
Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 systems become optional.
There are still many discrepancies with some agencies providing clear policies
and procedures and others only functioning at a very basic level.
There is an amendment to the guidelines due to be published in September 2010.
What is hoped for by many agencies, is:- 1.) A statue for Adult Protection
Committees- 2.) A duty on agencies to collaborate,
actively participate at a senior level in committees, and work together
3.) A duty on agencies to share information.
4.) The right to access the adult at risk, without obstruction and data to
inform policy planning. 5.) Adequate funding for adult
protection work References
External links No secrets documentation at the
Department of Health