Search results

The purpose of this paper is to consider what safeguarding responses to discriminatory abuse and hate crime might learn from existing research on restorative justice and to drive practice development based on available evidence.

This paper is based on a scoping review of literature using four academic databases and reference harvesting. This comprised a critical appraisal of 30 articles, which were thematically analysed to appreciate the benefits and challenges of restorative justice responses to hate crime and how this might inform safeguarding responses to discriminatory abuse and hate crime.

The analysis identifies four domains where learning can be drawn. These relate to theory on restorative justice; restorative justice practices; perspectives from lived experience of restorative justice and hate crime; and an appraisal of critiques about restorative justice.

This paper connects the emerging evidence on restorative criminal justice responses to hate crime to the “turn” towards strengths-based practices in adult safeguarding. Although this provides a fertile environment for embedding restorative practices, the authors argue certain precautions are required based on evidence from existing research on hate crime and restorative justice.

The Inherent Jurisdiction of the High Court (the IJ) is used in safeguarding adults work to protect “vulnerable adults” whose autonomy is compromised but who have mental capacity as defined by the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Safeguarding Adult Reviews (SARs) frequently call on practitioners to develop legal literacy, including regarding the IJ. This study aims to explore and discuss how the IJ is presented in SARs and argues that there are systemic problems beyond legal literacy to consider in this area.

Relevant SARs (n = 29) were located through the National Network of Safeguarding Adult Board Chair’s library. These were thematically analysed to identify patterns regarding how the IJ is covered in these documents.

The reviews converged around specific experiential clusters (familial and domestic abuse, community-based exploitation and self-neglect). They entailed accounts of complex mental capacity issues and raised concerns about legal literacy. It was common to find situations where many other avenues for intervention had been exhausted and the IJ was proposed as a measure of last resort. The discussion of the IJ in SARs occasionally differs from prevailing legal accounts of its application, particularly regarding self-neglect and situations where a third party is not exerting coercion or control. The authors close the study with a discussion about legal literacy.

The IJ is an evolving area of law, and practitioners may therefore struggle to grasp its applicability. SARs are important resources for practitioners to learn lessons concerning this less commonly used legal mechanism. As a result, independent reviewers should be cautious about how they frame this legal remedy and consider whether this really is a case of “legal literacy”.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to present a case study describing the progress that is being made in one city in England to increase access to Care Act 2014 assessments and personal budgets among people with experiences of homelessness and multiple exclusion.

A case study employing a “study group” to describe and reflect on local development work.

The authors focus on the “systems change” activity that was undertaken by one voluntary sector partnership project to address issues of referral and access to adult social care. This included the development of a “Multiple Needs Toolkit” designed to support voluntary sector workers to communicate more effectively with adult social care around the application of the new Care Act 2014 eligibility thresholds. The authors discuss the role of “persistent advocacy” in increasing access to assessments and also the limitations of this as regard the potential for poorer joint working.

Throughout, the authors draw on the “ambiguity-conflict” model of policy implementation to assess if the learning from this single case study might be applied elsewhere.

The Nationalökonomische Gesellschaft (Austrian Economic Association, NOeG) provides a prominent example of the Viennese economic circles and associations that more than academic economics dominated scientific discourse in the interwar years. For the first time this chapter gives a thorough account of its history, from its foundation in 1918 until the demise of its long-time president, Hans Mayer, 1955, based on official documents and archival material. The topics treated include its predecessor and rival, the Gesellschaft österreichischer Volkswirte, its foundation in 1918 soon to be followed by years of inactivity, the relaunch by Mayer and Mises, the survival under the NS-regime and the expulsion of its Jewish members and the slow restoration after 1945. In particular, an attempt is made to provide a list of the papers presented to the NOeG, as complete as possible, for the period 1918–1938.