Two workshops have been held, one in London and one in Manchester with approximately 60 delegates across both, the majority had not attended the March 2019 workshops. Two workshops have been held, one in London and one in Manchester with approximately 60 delegates across both, the majority had not attended the March 2019 workshops.
An emerging theme from both workshops was about how information gets cascaded to the correct people, when using the Safeguarding Adult Board (SAB) managers, or SAB Chairs networks, it felt important to clearly mark who the information was aimed at. Regional safeguarding leads were felt to be a good conduit for information also.
At the London event, all the delegates signed up to become pilot sites- those details will be forwarded to the project lead. Delegates at the Manchester event were more circumspect, with most wanting to check back in their organisation before committing. Delegates remained unaware that they could complete partial returns for the MSP Outcome Framework.
In asking what would support the programme moving forward, opportunities to share and discuss were again highlighted. A key way to do this was felt to be the reinvigoration of the LGA Knowledge Hub, and for that to be “the” place to host information. Face to face workshops and conferences were also felt to be of value, with perhaps this being broadly about the implementation of MSP, rather than a focus on the framework.
There was a request for a briefing to boards that “sells” the value of the MSP outcomes framework, what it is for, and how they can use it.
Practice is still not felt to be reflecting true MSP, and part of the issue is with language and organisations still using “old” safeguarding language. While this is happening, there was a view that we will struggle to change the culture. Articulating that MSP reflects the core values of social work, and the embedding of human rights in practice would support the development of practice.
There was a request for clarity on the programme, what is the intended length of Phase Two, and what will happen after that.
In asking what enables the use of the framework (or makes it of value) delegates said:
- Framework allows comparison to see if delegates are moving in the right direction (this was not shared in the Manchester workshop where the value of using the framework for comparison purposes was questioned).
- Framework allows delegates to network with other areas to see what others are doing differently (this was not shared in the Manchester workshop where the value of using the framework for comparison purposes was questioned).
- Framework can include mandatory questions within the forms.
- The importance of the relevance of questions (seeing the value).
- Valuable when using the information from audits to inform responses.
- Allows effective uses of the information by the boards.
- Framework provides incentives for completion.
- Working with independent organisations to gather feedback is beneficial.
- Allows opportunities to network with others.
- Events and conferences are beneficial to delegates.
Barriers to completing the framework that were identified included:
- Delegates using IT systems which don’t support the framework, or that don’t communicate with each other.
- Increasing framework fatigue as the project continues.
- Lack of understanding of MSP.
- Lacking the time and resources to gather the information.
- Lack of engagement from partner agencies with the framework process.
- Delegates feel a professional nervousness about gathering feedback.
- The disadvantages of recording processes which become data-driven rather than person-led.
- Inconsistency of the subjectivity and interpretation of feedback from people.
- The lack of knowledge of MSP at the practice level acts as a barrier.
- Caution and lack of knowledge regarding the way in which the board may use the framework.