Making Decisions about Who Should Be Barred from Working with Adults in Vulnerable Situations: The Need for Social Work Understanding

This article reports on an element of recently completed research that aimed to explore factors leading to placement on the Protection of Vulnerable Adults (POVA) List-a barring list unique to England and Wales. A multiple methods approach was adopted, involving in-depth quantitative analysis of POVA referral records and a set of discussion groups and interviews investigating how decisions were being made. This article focuses on this latter element, setting out and discussing the overall schema for decision making resulting from the analysis, which identified an interplay between emotional and moral responses to the individual referred and evidence about the alleged misconduct. The importance of involving all stakeholders in the development of such a decision-making system is raised through the research and the implications for social workers are explored.

[1]  Kathleen Malley-Morrison,et al.  International Perspectives on Elder Abuse: Five Case Studies , 2006 .

[2]  K. Mclaughlin,et al.  Regulation and Risk in Social Work: The General Social Care Council and the Social Care Register in Context , 2006 .

[3]  L. Wells Improving the Life Chances of Disabled People , 2005 .

[4]  R. V. Krieken,et al.  Crime, government and civilization: Rethinking Elias in Criminology , 2006 .

[5]  A. Strauss,et al.  The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research aldine de gruyter , 1968 .

[6]  H. Heath,et al.  Developing a grounded theory approach: a comparison of Glaser and Strauss. , 2004, International journal of nursing studies.

[7]  Karen Jackson,et al.  Personalised social care for adults with disabilities: a problematic concept for frontline practice. , 2006, Health & social care in the community.

[8]  J. Manthorpe,et al.  Developing wider workforce regulation in England: Lessons from education, social work and social care , 2007, Journal of interprofessional care.

[9]  K. Ellis,et al.  Direct Payments and Social Work Practice: The Significance of ‘Street-Level Bureaucracy’ in Determining Eligibility , 2007 .

[10]  G. Rolfe Validity, trustworthiness and rigour: quality and the idea of qualitative research. , 2006, Journal of advanced nursing.

[11]  Jill Manthorpe,et al.  Articulating the Improvement of Care Standards: The Operation of a Barring and Vetting Scheme in Social Care , 2009, Journal of Social Policy.

[12]  N. Taylor Obstacles and Dilemmas in the Delivery of Direct Payments to Service Users with Poor Mental Health , 2008 .

[13]  Julie L. P. Jessop,et al.  Ethics In Qualitative Research , 2012 .

[14]  Martin Stevens Individual budgets: on the launch pad , 2006 .

[15]  Jill Manthorpe,et al.  Weighing the evidence: a case for using vignettes to elicit public and practitioner views of the workings of the POVA vetting and barring scheme , 2008 .

[16]  C. Glendinning,et al.  Training for Change: Early Days of Individual Budgets and the Implications for Social Work and Care Management Practice: A Qualitative Study of the Views of Trainers , 2009 .

[17]  C. Glendinning,et al.  Safeguarding and System Change: Early Perceptions of the Implications for Adult Protection Services of the English Individual Budgets Pilots—A Qualitative Study , 2009 .

[18]  C. Brodsky The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research , 1968 .