Contents

IntroductionPage 2

MethodPage 3

Breakdown of participant’s detailsPage 4

Views on Initial ProceedingsPage 6

Views on the ProcessPage 10

Views on the OutcomesPage 19

ConclusionPage 26

Appendix APage 25

Appendix BPage 30

Appendix CPage 32

Introduction

The Adult Support and Protection Act became law in 2007. Since then all local authorities have implemented procedures aimed at ensuring the safety and well-being of any adult deemed to be at risk of harm.

South Lanarkshire Adult Protection Committee commissioned The Advocacy Project to speak to a number of individuals who have recently been subject to their procedures in relation to the legislation. The Advocacy Project is an independent advocacy provider in South Lanarkshire. The intention of this piece of work is to ensure that service users have an opportunity to reflect on their experience and in doing so help to shape strategy for the future and enhance staff practice. A fully rounded evaluation of service delivery would not be complete without reflections from those who went through the experience.

Participants were selected from across the region with a mix of client groups and issues. Not all participants went through the Adult Support and Protection procedures from referral to protection plan stage; this reflects the nature of statutory input and the fact that many cases do not need to progress beyond investigation stage.

The purpose of this report is to draw together a selection of people’s views and perceptions on their experience. It is not, in itself, intended to assess or draw conclusions on the services that the participants received.

The lay out of the report is structured around questions which participants were encouraged to discuss in a relaxed informal way. The focus is not in the statistical information gathered but rather in the collation of the perceptions that participants had about how they were treated and the outcomes for them.

The Advocacy Project would like to thank all those who took part and chose to share their experiences with us.

Method

TheSouth Lanarkshire Adult Protection Committee Co-ordinator asked the Social Work area teams toidentify adults who had experience of the Adult Support and Protection (A.S.P.) legislation and had been through the A.S.P. process.It was stipulated that participants should represent a mix of age groups, living situations and types of harm. These adults were contacted by their social worker or a social work assistant, who explained the evaluation processand gained the adults consent to participate in the evaluation. The information leaflet and consent form are attached here as Appendix A. These individuals were then contacted by The Advocacy Project bytelephone or letter, asking if they would be willing to speak to someone from The Advocacy Project about their experience of the A.S.P. process and the resulting outcomes. For various reasons it proved difficult to identify adults to take part in the process, so the findings are based uponthe participation of 6 adults, 4 identified by the social work area teams and 2 adults who had received a service from The Advocacy Project due to adult protection processes. This has meant analysis of data is limited, however the comments from the participants has provided some positive and constructive feedback.

In compliance with the Data Protection Act, and to respect participants’ right to privacy, The Advocacy Project was only given basic information about their situation (see Appendix A). Participants were advised that the report would not include any information which would identify them or their families. It was also important that the views recorded were based solely on information provided by the participant.

One person who participated in the evaluation was represented by family members due to capacity issues, the other 5 individuals did not require support or representation to participate in the evaluation.

Interviews took place between March and July 2016. The questions were semi-structured around certain themes (appendix B), the intention was to keep the process as informal as possible to allow for the best possible engagement with the individual, particularly given that the subject matter might have been quite distressing to recall.

9 people consented to the evaluation process and 6 people were interviewed. Three people were unable to complete the evaluation process for various reasons. The Advocacy Project respectedpeople’s preference as to where the evaluation took place. Most participants had the conversation about their experiences of the process in their own home. One participant completed the interview by telephone. Of the 6 people interviewed, 3of these participants had received independent advocacy support which was provided by either The Advocacy Project or Speak Out Advocacy Project. To minimiseany conflict of interest,the interviewer had no prior history or any other information about the participants.

Breakdown of Participants’ Details

Views on the Initial Proceedings

Did you feel you were at risk of harm?

The initial involvement for most people was when they were contacted by the social work department, one person was referred by their advocacy worker. Most people had prior involvement with social work services.

All of the participants felt they were at risk of harm initially and understood why others were worried about them, in one instance the person did not understand they were in danger due to capacity issues, but this was identified by family members.

Four out of the six people were perceived to be at risk of financial harm with elements of psychological harm involved, in two cases sexual harm was also involved. One person was at risk of self-neglect.


All the participants or their representatives agreed that they needed support, 3 of the 6 participants felt the support given was what was needed, 1 person felt the support was not appropriate and two were unsure. Two of the participants felt that social work had helped where police had been unable to, one person was supported to arrange a payment plan to reverse the financial harm, but one person reflected that they would never be able to replace the items and money taken. Another participant was supported via a care package which dramatically improved their living conditions.

Views on the Process

Two of the 6 participants said they had received written information on the adult protection process itself and both confirmed they had a protection plan. One person confirmed that they had been given an ASP factsheet, one said they had not received this and two were unsure. Those who received information reflected that they felt more informed and involved in the process and found the information useful, they also reflected that social workers involved took time to explain the process to them.

Half of the participants had an advocacy worker, of those 3, all reported that they found this useful. One person had been offered advocacy support but declined as they had had advocacy support in the past, but felt they could manage on their own. Two people reflected that when they learn more about the advocacy role, they felt it was something which could have been useful to them. One person was told about advocacy via their GP, they felt that while advocacy was useful the advocacy input was limited to support prior to and at meetings.

Half of the participants felt that the process was fully explained to them and half felt their views were listened to within the process, one person indicated that plans were changed in line with their views. One person reflected that they felt their family member was not fully involved to understand the process and participate

Four people out of the six attended the adult protection case conference and subsequent meetings. Three of those four felt that they were meaningfully involved in the process with one person reflecting that their own suggestions were taken on board with regard to where they lived and arrangements made to ensure family members were only given the information they were comfortable with. Another person who had felt fully supported and involved throughout the process, found the meeting itself difficult due to the paperwork and the lack of accessible information or time given to absorb and understand the paperwork. One person didn’t attend the meeting due to mobility issues and was unsure whether he had been offered the option of a meeting in his home. One person’s representative reflected that their input was not meaningful as their suggestions were not implemented in the protection plan.

Views on the Outcomes

Do you feel safer as a result of the process?

The majority of the participants were very positive about their experience overall, 4 out of the 6 participants interviewed agreed that they felt safer after the process and that it had improved their quality of life. One person’s representative felt that their family member was no safer than before and had concerns the same adult protection issues would arise again. Of the 4 who felt the process had improved their quality of life, two participants reflected that it had empowered them and changed their outlook on life generally. Two of these four reflected on the practical changes with regard to their care plan which had made a great difference to their quality of life. On person reflected that while they were protected from further financial harm, they were unable to replace the goods and money stolen from them, while another was supported to arrange a repayment plan with the family member who was financially harming them.

Although 4 of the 6 felt the overall process and outcome was positive, only 3 of the 6 felt they agreed with the decisions made and felt supported through the process. This could be due to issues highlighted earlier with attending meetings, not having enough information on the process or not fully understanding the process.

In terms of response times, 3 out of the 6 felt agencies acted quickly to support them, two people felt that the response to their issues was slow and one was unsure. Three of the six said they would know who to contact for help in the future, but 3 were unsure.

Evaluation

Four of the participants felt the evaluation was the best way form them to reflect on their experience of the adult protection process.

Conclusion

Situations that require the implementation of Adult Support and Protection procedures are often complex and highly emotive for the individuals involved. Participants reflected on these experiences as being stressful and difficult periods in their lives and it is difficult to compile what are very individual stories.

On the whole participantsappreciated the support they received. The most valued support was from social workers who took the time to involve them in the process and ensure they understood what was happening. Participants reflected on support fromother agencies such as independent advocacy workers, care home staff, support staff, community nurse and GP.

While the majority of the participants were positive that the process had made them feel safer and improved their quality of life, some reflected that the process could have been improved in terms of practical arrangements such as accessible information, less form filling and more meaningful involvement at meetings.The benefits of independent advocacy were highlighted, but half reflected they felt this was not something that was made available to them.

There were also additional positive outcomes such as improved finances and some participants reflecting on how they felt stronger and more empowered on a personal level. One participant reflected on how they had met the people harming them and were able to refuse their request for money. In response to the question “Is there anything else you would like to say about the process?” one participant replied, “There was a definite start, middle and end but the support is ongoing and will continue. I now know I can tap into support, I feel involved, this wasn’t just a quick fix.” Participants felt safer and more able to protect themselves or ask for help.

All participants appeared satisfied that they had been able to share their story with someone. They hoped their views could help show what might be important for others in the future.

Appendix A

SERVICE USER EVALUATION

Who Are We?

South Lanarkshire Adult Protection Committee makes sure that people get the help they need when they need it, and are protected from harm.

The Committee has representatives from:

  • South Lanarkshire Council Social Work, Housing, Education and Legal Services
  • NHS Lanarkshire
  • Police
  • Care Inspectorate
  • Fire and Rescue Service
  • Scottish Ambulance Service
  • Procurator Fiscal’s Service
  • Advocacy services
  • Voluntary Organisations

What are we doing?

Our aim is to keep people free from all kinds of harm

– including physical harm, financial exploitation and neglect.

One way we can improve how we do this is to look carefully at the way people who may have been harmed have been supported.

The best way for us to find out what worked best for people is to ask them.

How will we do that?

We would like to hear directly from you:

  • your views of the support and services you received
  • if you felt safer following the involvement of services

We have asked The Advocacy Project to speak to people who may have been harmed by others, or may have harmed themselves.

The Advocacy Project is an independent organisation – there is more information about them in the attached leaflet.

We would need your permission before we could arrange for an advocacy worker to meet with you. It is up to you to decide – and we will take no action without your permission.

If you agree to meet with an advocacy worker, we will ask you to sign a consent form. We will only ask you do this after we have explained more about what we will do.

You should sign the form only if you agree that you are willing to speak to an advocacy worker.

What if I don’t want to speak with an advocacy worker?

If you do not want to speak with an advocacy worker, you will not be asked to sign the consent form and we will not arrange for an advocacy worker to meet with you.

What happens if I agree to speak with an advocacy worker?

Your name and contact details will be passed to The Advocacy Project. An advocacy worker will get in touch with you to arrange to meet with you, and send you a letter to confirm the arrangement.

You can decide where you want to meet. If you wish to meet somewhere other than your home, we can meet the cost of any travel expenses.

You can decide if you want to have someone with you when you meet with the advocacy worker.

The advocacy worker will ask you about the situation when you were at risk of being harmed. They will want to hear how you felt about the situation and how you were supported. They will write down the information you give.

You only need to give the information that you want to – you do not need to give any information that you wish to keep private.

The advocacy worker will have received some basic information about your situation. We need your permission to pass that information to the advocacy worker.

What happens next?

The information you give will be included in a report that The Advocacy Project will write up for the Adult Protection Committee.

Your name will not be used in the report. You are free to give your views as you wish.

The Adult Protection Committee will receive the report – and from that we will learn how support and services can be changed or improved.

Why are we doing this?

By speaking to you, we can find out what made a difference to you

– and this will help us to make sure other people get the same help.

If you did not get the help you needed, we will find out why. This will help us improve the help we give in future.

IF YOU WANT FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE SPEAK TO THE PERSON WHO GAVE YOU THIS LEAFLET AND GAVE YOU THE CHANCE TO SIGN THE CONSENT FORM.

OR, CONTACT ALISTAIR WALKER, ADULT PROTECTION CO-ORDINATOR, REGENT HOUSE, HIGH PATRICK STREET, HAMILTON, ML3 7ES. Tel 01698 452876

CONSENT FORM

Name of Person: ......

I agree / do not agree (delete as appropriate) to:

  • meeting with an advocacy worker from The Advocacy Project, and
  • talking about my recent involvement with public services when I was thought to be at risk of harm
  • the Advocacy Project being provided with some basic information about my recent involvement with services

All information will be dealt with in the strictest confidence and with sensitivity. Neither you, or your family or friends will be identified at any stage.