Darlington Borough Council: local authority assessment

We found there were systems, processes and practices in place to make sure people were protected from abuse and neglect. The local authority worked well with the safeguarding board and other partners to deliver a coordinated approach to safeguarding adults. We found there was a strong multi-agency safeguarding partnership and the roles and responsibilities for identifying and responding to concerns were clear. Appropriate information sharing arrangements were in place which meant concerns were raised and assessed quickly.

Safeguarding arrangements were part of the front door, alongside the Adult Contact Team (ACT). Staff said liaison with the safeguarding team worked well and risk management was shared effectively.

The Association of Directors of Adult Social Services (ADASS) screening tool was used effectively for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) requests in the frontline safeguarding team and we saw a DoLS process ‘map’ for staff to follow. There were 24 cases waiting allocation at the time of assessment and high priority cases were allocated straight away. Community DoLS were appropriately managed in longer term teams and there were no waits at the time of the assessment.

National data showed somewhat better than, or similar to national averages in metrics around feeling safe. For example, 74.38% of people who used services felt safe in the local authority area which was somewhat better than national average (71.06%). 88.43% of people who used services, said the services had made them feel safe which was similar to national average (87.82%) (both ASCS 2023-2024). Likewise, 84.00% of carers felt safe which was similar to national average (80.93%) (SACE 2023-2024).

We saw evidence safeguards were in place to support people at risk, including risks around finances. Positive considerations were made around any restrictions on freedoms, deprivations of liberty and human rights. Partners said there were no concerns about the local authority’s safeguarding practices and reported good relationships between them and the local authority. However, some feedback was raised about ‘lower level’ concerns not always being communicated effectively between the local authority and partners.

We saw a strategic plan for the Darlington Safeguarding Partnership which involved the key partners across health, adult social care and the police. The safeguarding board also included children's services which supported transitions and because of the smaller size of the local authority, effectively ensured good attendance and partnerships. The lead elected member for adult social care regularly observed the safeguarding board as part of their role. Adult social care maintained a strong focus and was in-balance with the children's agenda on the board’s work.

The safeguarding board subgroups included partnership governance structures, champion networks and task and finish groups. There was a clear strategic intention to make safeguarding everybody's business and improving the awareness of safeguarding across communities and partner organisations, with prevention and early intervention a priority.

Joint working, self-neglect and exploitation were key areas of work. The board was supported with a data analyst provided from the police and was described as ‘well resourced’. There was a strong working relationship between leaders and partners at the local authority and safeguarding board who met regularly outside of arranged meetings.

In 2023 to 2024 there were 2995 safeguarding contacts which was an increase on the previous two years. The local authority said in their self-assessment a high number of referrals were received from care homes and work was ongoing, including with a ‘decision support tool’, to ensure providers understood the criteria. We heard providers could easily access the safeguarding team for advice by telephone. The triage tool had improved consistency of decision making and helped to progress cases or close them.

There was a clear understanding of the safeguarding risks and issues in the area. The local authority worked with safeguarding partners to reduce risk and prevent abuse and neglect from occurring.

We heard ACT and the frontline safeguarding team worked together and did joint visits together if necessary. There was a risk assessment tool used to assess when concerns were high-risk. It enabled multidisciplinary team working and the team also took cases to the practice support forum to consider the level of risk. Staff and leaders said the local authority intended to provide a least-intrusive response while maintaining good governance, monitoring and observing themes and provider accountability.

Most partners said staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding and they were approachable, but some said it was more challenging to access the team and get feedback or outcomes. Staff worked closely with safeguarding colleagues to analyse patterns and trends about providers and had regular information meetings with partners including the CQC. There was a weekly safeguarding review meeting focused on adults with care and support needs who were at risk of experiencing abuse and neglect. This acted as a safeguarding checkpoint and included checking all contacts that week which did not progress the initial inquiry. They also checked the threshold of decision making and whether they were progressing proportionately by using a dip sampling method.

People's experiences were mixed on safeguarding cases, most people reported a good experience, and some said they had experienced waits.

The safeguarding partnership had undertaken two learning-lessons reviews on two separate cases involving deaths where self-neglect was highlighted as an issue, and we saw a thematic briefing on self-neglect. There was a reflective system of learning within the safeguarding partnership and actions were identified and taken forward. Dip sampling of self-neglect cases was undertaken and there was consideration of specific risks around self-neglect. Practice guidance had been developed as a result and training actions were identified for the partnership.

We heard about a conference recently available to staff on hoarding which had followed a rise of cases in the borough and involved good practice and toolkits for staff which were now in use. There were some emerging themes set out by the local authority covering the last 12 months, these were neglect and acts omission in care homes, self-neglect and in-patient concerns around physical abuse. The local authority had local measures in place to explore themes and trends, discuss regional and national safeguarding adult review cases (SAR) and set actions for learning. There were also plans in place to improve safeguarding processes, caseloads, continuity of care, safe systems and transitions, best-interest assessments and advocacy.

There was clarity on what constituted a Section 42 safeguarding concern and when the Section 42 safeguarding enquiries were required, these were applied consistently. A Section 42 oversight document described the process for staff to follow when a safeguarding concern was received, a detailed triage process and a tool for staff to use. It included examples of types of concerns that may be raised, within different categories and a varied degree of risk, provided by the safeguarding partnership. The safeguarding referrals were triaged by a senior practitioner who also reviewed all safeguarding concerns which did not progress to Section 42 enquiry.

During the reporting year 2022-23, 1243 safeguarding concerns were raised, with 24% progressing to a Section 42 enquiry with 95% having risk reduced or removed and 69% having an individual family or advocate involved. Safeguarding adults collection (SAC) data (2023) showed 2265 safeguarding concerns raised with 830 progressing to Section 42 enquiries which was 36.6%. The local authority said between April 2024 to December 2024, 2174 safeguarding concerns were raised with 25.7% progressing to Section 42 enquiries. The median wait time from contact to enquiry end date was reported as 16 days.

Partners said, in general, safeguarding was managed well by the local authority and partners worked closely with the safeguarding team. We heard about a positive and supportive culture with the local authority offering training and support when needed. In general there were lessons learned and partners said they ‘closed the loop’ really well, around information and outcomes. As of June 2024, there were 10 Section 42 enquiries waiting to be allocated and there were no safeguarding concerns waiting for an initial review.

A very high proportion of people who lacked capacity were supported by an advocate (98.61%), compared to the national average (83.12%) (SAC 2023-2024). Staff said there was good communication links between social work teams and the safeguarding team and it was a priority to make safeguarding personal at every opportunity. We found staff were person-centred and strength-based in their practice in making safeguarding personal and was saw evidence to demonstrate this.

We heard from partners safeguarding enquiries were carried out sensitively and without delay, keeping the wishes and best-interests of the person at the centre. Some partners had gathered feedback from people who had been through the process of safeguarding and reported their findings and feedback was very positive. People had been listened to, involved and supported to be safe. Partners also reported they were working with the local authority to support people who didn’t meet the safeguarding threshold. We heard about a ‘think family’ approach being used in relation to safeguarding cases involving hoarding. The impact on other adults involved (alongside children) had been included in a new hoarding tool.