Bolstering Adult Protection
Adult protection legislation and investigations have always had fewer teeth than the equivalent in children’s services. This is something that has niggled me for all the years that I have been responsible for conducting Adult Protection (now called Safeguarding Adults) investigations.
You can find yourself in a situation where harm has been caused and then be powerless to actually do anything about it – or be forced into a situation where you are removing the victim from the perpetrator rather than the other way round – with no police interest or support because the person in question, even though they may lack capacity – has ‘agreed’ to hand over vast amounts of cash. Anyway, that’s perhaps another story for another day.
In the meantime, The Times reports today that a new ‘Safeguarding Adults’ consultation document is being published today.
The article highlights a couple of proposed changes.
Firstly
Ministers will propose that banks, building societies and the Financial Services Authority monitor the accounts of elderly people for unusual cash withdrawals and direct debits and share information with the authorities where theft or fraud is suspected
I murmured with approval when I read this. Massive issue. Financial abuse is by far the most common type of abuse that I’ve come across. Perhaps because it is so easily done. It is almost always by family and friends. I can recount so many stories, personally witnesses, of how many times this happens. It ceases to be a surprise anymore.
Possibly there are lots of children who use their parents’ bank accounts as extensions of their own banking facilities (without that awkward ‘paying back’ thing). But it’s one thing when your parents know what they are doing and are aware of the likelihood (or not!) of getting the money back and it if they are not, then it’s abuse.
‘Oh but.. ‘ ‘S/He won’t mind’ ‘He always lends me money’ ‘I’ll pay it back’ ‘S/He doesn’t need it as much as me’ ‘I’ll inherit it anyway’ (yes, I’ve heard that defence… ).
Sorry. No.
Information from the banks directly would be wonderful. Not least because it could help to secure prosecution if necessary and also would help to alert us to those, particularly with dementia, who begin to empty their own bank accounts by making unusual withdrawals on a daily basis (currently I am working with a woman who had been withdrawing £150 per day from her account and lending it to a ‘friend’ who meets her outside the bank).
Interestingly the Times points out that
Tens of millions of pounds of life savings, possessions and homes were stolen from elderly people last year by their own families, according to a leading charity, which carried out research last year.
The cases range from cash being taken from a purse to the proceeds of house sales being diverted into a relative’s account without the elderly owner’s knowledge. The problem could get worse as more elderly people are given cash to pay for the care they need in their own homes under the Government’s personal budgets programme.
As with most abusive scenarios, it is most likely to come from within the family.
On that basis, it is unsurprising (for me, anyway) that
Another proposal in today’s report could lead to social workers being given powers to check up on how older people are being looked after in their own home with the help of their children. However, it makes clear that ministers will not extend to elderly people the present child-protection policies, which include a statutory duty on all agencies to share information if maltreatment is suspected.
The report speaks of “a recognition that a more flexible approach is required”. That was criticised by local authorities and campaigners who want similar laws. Although older people in residential homes and those who receive support from care workers in their own homes are partly protected by law, those cared for by a family member, friend or neighbours are not protected at all.
I don’t know what it is about adult protection or protection of vulnerable older people that somehow doesn’t seem to push the ‘right’ buttons. Surely if another human being is vulnerable and needs protection, it should not matter whether they are 8 or 80? Even animals have more legal rights to protection currently than older people.
I am thinking back to one situation I was faced with where a crime had been committed against an older woman by her son. There was no doubt – the police were involved from the outset. No prosecution was possible because she could not be presented as a ‘viable’ witness in court.
It still angers me.
Trying to be positive though, at least some more teeth might be added to the current systems.
Posted on October 16, 2008, in elderly, local authority, old age, older people, social care, social issues, social work, work and tagged abuse by children, adult protection, Bank, Bank account, cash, changing in adult protection, elderly, financial abuse, Financial services, Financial Services Authority, government, money, older people, safeguarding adults, social services, social work, uk. Bookmark the permalink. 9 Comments.
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes – I am involved regualrly with adult protection and have twice in the last year alone seen someone not end up in court because the person they had stolen from was too frail to get to court/to be considered a reliable witness. The whole issue of adult abuse is so difficult -so often the eprson being abused would choose to continue with the current situation than lose the person doing the abusing and who can really blame them in a way – it may be the alternative to a life with no family at all rather than a pretty crap one – Hobsons choice. Like you it amazes me – after all we humans are pretty selfish beggars – you would think given that we are all getting older the powers that be would address theissue – I think it’s because nobody can imagine themselves old and dependent and frail and abused…or they just cant bear to look at the possibility….
And it so often results in a risk balancing exercise when the victim is left with the alleged perpetrator because it would is felt to increase the risk by being more proactive and the outcome is increased monitoring. Mainly due to lack of statutory power
And a lot of the time the people being investigated are often unaware. So different to child protection work when if I want to refer someone then I have to tell them in advance because it will be disclosed to them.
Caroline – I can imagine and have been in similar situations myself as indicated above. It is incredible what some people are capable of.
TT – Our guidelines indicate that – depending on what is being investigated and whether a crime has been committed – that we should usually tell the alleged perpetrator. Certainly when we start the official Safeguarding Adults procedures, it is not something that we can do without the knowledge of the person being investigated. It can make situations very difficult when you are leaving the person in question ‘in situ’.
Not being a social worker but having (some!) interesting work and life experiences, I can’t help thinking that the gradual introduction of the provision of a personal services economy at the expense of true infrastructural opportunities has probably criminalised whole sections of society and future generations. Amazingly, all these problems can be resolved in a generation if we restore the human rights of the poor and build more houses. Expect, in this Olympian drive to 2012, that everyone has the right to a roof over their head and a job. Real diversity and creativity in the body of the whole country rather than over reliance on socially engineered planning and development models that are based on market segmentation rather than social realities and such injustice!
Astonishingly, in Nottingham, 23.4 million will be spent this year on providing mental health and related services at he expense of rehabiltating and building homes. If you think back thirty years, most of the people now receiving assistance from the state in disability or other benefits would have been employed and in council housing. (They would probably smoke and drink but they wouldn’t be running heroin houses).
I think it’s important to consider how the lock stock and smoking barrel importation of american techniques of controlling their ‘underclass’, the sale of council housing, the buy to let economy where, maybe the professional or the affluent worker in the service economy saw the opportunity to secure their retirement and swallowed the ideology of exploiting their ‘market’ without any social accountability or neccessity for social justice. Wtihout social justice and the reciprocity of protection and service in the landlord tenant relationship, ‘Tenant ‘ has become an agency and market shorthand for ring fencing, rather than nurturing of the life chances of this group of people. All the ‘illness’ is a learned response and strategy to this (untenable) position and I think the isolation of theft and the focus on the ‘exploitation’ of the vulnerable needs to understand that the drivers of the market are technologically and pharmaceutically driven. We are all in the service of these ‘machines’ at the moment, whether in the legal or the illegal areas and this will only be addressed by parliamentary debate, involvement and giving up our own vested interests in ‘realities’ that are harming others!
Consider the way council neighbourhoods were gerrymandered and became dumping grounds for all the social issues. What chances do neighbourhoods have when the issues of allocation were ideological?
I
Housing is a massive issue in the UK – especially public housing. I think a lot of the market forces have been proved to be less than successful – just look at the banks today. That’s the free market for you.
But in the issue of adult protection/abuse – and financial abuse, it is just as likely, if not more, in my experience to be the province of the middle classes.
It’s probably everywhere but the hand of the state is much more visible on the activities of the poorer because it’s easier to believe that the poor are genetically at fault!
My grandmother’s daughter, a nurse, and her husband are withholding my grandmother’s money, apparently to stop her “losing it” or “having it stolen”. As a result, she worries terribly about going out with friends and often stays at home when she might otherwise go out. Her friends have noticed the problem, and she is lucky to have them, but they know they cannot do anything about it. My aunt and uncle are clearly safeguarding their inheritance – and acting as if it is already theirs. It is dehumanising – and it sickens me.
Any new legislation can only be a benefit.
That’s exactly the kind of situation I was thinking about Louise. We see it a lot.
I think it happens in all families. As a culture we’re socialised to gradually belittle and exclude our parents with our own (questionable) competence and success. I think change can happen if we start to reclaim LIFE as a mystery and an exchange that doesn’t reside in property and social status. In a way, it’s about the ‘grown ups’ beginning to enjoy life again and enjoying a simpler life, maybe, and not relying on youth services and schools to deliver solutions.
It’s ‘ok’ and almost a youth work ‘given” not to communicate properly between generations (there’s money in it!) and there are so many institutions around children and youth that seem to play to this lack of communication, trying to be ‘hip’ and to ‘get down’ with kids. And then, as soon as they arrive at the work, college or university gate they’re pounced on by banks, phone and credit card companies. We’ve excised the notion of maturity from our learning agenda and just note whether someone is mature or immature but don’t really reflect upon it.
If you take this further and consider how we, as adults, collude with ‘the forces of our own extinction’ then maybe this immature attitude towards property and material gain is something we need to reflect on. How many people really expect something at the end of our lives and should we?