Assessment framework for local authority assurance

• Safeguarding is embedded as everyone’s business across the system. Safeguarding practice actively promotes equality, diversity, and inclusion, protecting people from harm, enhancing wellbeing and strengthening their autonomy.

• There is a strong emphasis on prevention within local communities, supported by approaches that are tailored to diverse community needs and informed by an in-depth understanding of how safeguarding concerns manifest differently. 

• Safeguarding is underpinned by strong system-wide leadership and a deeply embedded culture across the local authority and its partners, which frames safeguarding as a shared responsibility. 

• The local authority is an exemplary, deeply engaged partner to the Safeguarding Adults Board, showing proactive leadership and ensuring meaningful involvement of people with lived experience.  

• There is strong evidence of systemic learning from Safeguarding Adults Reviews, multi-agency audits, and other review activities, which drives continuous improvement in systems, processes, and practice. Internal audit findings show a rigorous preventative approach that considers thematic risks at all levels, not only when a Safeguarding Adults Review threshold is met. 

• People’s outcomes are embedded in safeguarding practice. Proactive action is taken to ensure safeguarding is meaningful and personal to groups whose voices are seldom heard. Community partners are involved to support personalisation of safeguarding processes. 

• The local authority has a sustained record of working creatively to engage people who may find it difficult to be involved, including those experiencing self-neglect, homelessness, multiple exclusion or transitional safeguarding risks. It proactively learns from people with lived experience and shares this learning across the system to drive continuous improvement. 

• Safeguarding is everyone’s business. Effective and timely systems, processes and practices safeguard people from abuse and/or neglect when concerns are raised. People’s human rights are upheld, and they are protected from discrimination. 

• There is a clear understanding of safeguarding risks and issues in the area, supported by a well-resourced strategic plan that takes a preventative approach and improves outcomes. Staff take a proactive approach to early signs of abuse and neglect, including concerns that are not eligible for section 42 enquiries, with a strong understanding of how these may present. 

• Safeguarding has clear senior leadership and oversight, with the Director of Adult Social Services providing participative leadership. Multi-agency safeguarding partnerships routinely share learning and identify themes and trends that drive improvements.  

• Roles, responsibilities, and pathways for responding to safeguarding concerns are well-defined, embedded, and used consistently. There is proactive engagement with providers, supported by an open and supportive culture focused on safety. Escalation processes are well understood by all. 

• The local authority is an effective, engaged partner in the Safeguarding Adults Board, responding proactively to identified priorities and implementing plans for each. Learning from Safeguarding Adults Reviews is consistently shared and embedded across partners, reducing risk and preventing recurrence. The Board is assured that actions are appropriately disseminated and implemented. Performance in practice quality, pathways, and timeliness is routinely monitored and reported, supported by robust quality assurance and audits that ensure consistent decisions and identify emerging trends. 

• All local authority staff involved in safeguarding work are suitably skilled and knowledgeable and are supported to undertake their safeguarding duties effectively and safely. Training for staff and partner agencies is available and take-up is monitored, with consistently high completion rates. 

• There is clarity on section 42 safeguarding concerns, supported by robust screening and triage processes, and defined team responsibilities. Strong risk management is in place for people waiting for a safeguarding enquiry to be completed, and everyone is kept informed throughout. 

• Staff take a person-centred approach, capturing people’s wishes and expectations at every stage. Rigorous data, governance, and oversight strengthen safeguarding enquiries, including those carried out by partners, with the local authority retaining overall responsibility. Partnership working is productive, with safeguarding concerns and thresholds well understood and applied proportionately and transparently. 

• Making Safeguarding Personal (MSP) is at the heart of safeguarding practice and evident at all levels, with regular audits ensuring staff understand people’s wishes. People are consistently supported to make choices that balance risk with positive control and autonomy. MSP data is routinely submitted to NHS Digital.

• People with lived experience contribute meaningfully to the quality assurance of safeguarding processes and procedures, with steps taken to protect them from re-experiencing trauma. 

• People can get support from an advocate if they wish or be appointed an advocate when they do not have the mental capacity to make the decision. 

• Requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Equality Act 2010 are well understood by all staff. Staff demonstrate how they put these into practice effectively and support people to understand their rights. 

• Improvements are needed to embed safeguarding as everyone’s business. Systems, processes and practices do not always improve people’s outcomes and experiences, ensure that their human rights are upheld or that they are protected from discrimination. 

• There is an inconsistent understanding of local safeguarding risks and issues, and how they are prioritised and acted on, which has a variable impact. Staff need further support to take a proactive approach to early signs of abuse and neglect, and immediate action is not always taken to keep people safe from abuse and neglect. 

• There is limited senior leadership and oversight of safeguarding work. Multi-agency safeguarding partnerships identify themes and trends, but these are not routinely used to make improvements.  

• Roles and responsibilities and pathways for responding to safeguarding concerns are unclear and inconsistent, and little guidance is available. Escalation processes are not thorough or understood by all. 

• The local authority is an inconsistent partner in the Safeguarding Adults Board. Learning from Safeguarding Adults Reviews is not routinely shared across partnerships, to reduce risk and prevent recurrence. The Board is not always assured that actions are consistently implemented.  

• A stronger learning and improvement culture is needed to improve practice and outcomes. Performance in practice quality, pathways, and timeliness is not routinely monitored or reported, and inconsistent quality assurance and audits limit the ability to ensure consistent decisions and identify trends. 

• Local authority staff are not always trained effectively to carry out safeguarding enquiries, with low completion rates for completing training in safeguarding and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. High workloads also affect the timeliness and quality of enquiries. Although plans are in place to address these issues, improvements are not yet evident or sustained. 

• There is a lack of clarity on section 42 safeguarding concerns, with inconsistent rationale and outcomes from initial enquiries. Safeguarding screening and triage processes are not robust or consistently applied. Risk management approaches are not consistently in place for people waiting for a safeguarding enquiry to be completed. Those involved are not routinely kept informed.  

• A person-centred safeguarding approach is not yet embedded. Delays in allocating section 42 enquiries persist, and people’s wishes are not consistently captured. Data quality is inconsistent and there is insufficient governance and oversight of safeguarding enquiries, including with partners. Partnership working is inconsistent, and partners report mixed experiences of the local authority’s responsiveness and support. 

• Most people are asked about their desired outcomes for Making Safeguarding Personal (MSP). More work is needed to ensure everyone is involved in their safeguarding pathway and that their outcomes are recorded, so that MSP is consistently embedded. People are not consistently supported to make choices that balance risks with positive choice and control in their lives. 

• The local authority does not proactively seek to learn from people with lived experience or involve them in safeguarding quality assurance activities.  

• People who lack mental capacity are not always appropriately supported with access to an advocate during the safeguarding process. 

• People are not always supported to understand their rights under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Equality Act 2010. 

Assessors may consider there are ‘significant shortfalls’ when there are breaches of The Care Act (2014), or risks of a breach, which have or might have a significant impact on people’s outcomes and experiences, including unpaid carers. Significant shortfalls are where the following apply: