Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council: local authority assessment

National data from the Adult Social Care Survey for 2023/24 showed 83.74% of people who use services said those services made them feel safe and secure. This was somewhat worse than the England average (87.82%). However, the same data showed 76.69% of people who use services felt safe and this was somewhat better than the England average (71.06%).

The local authority worked with the Safeguarding Adults Board and partners to deliver a coordinated approach to safeguarding adults in the area. The Sandwell Safeguarding Adults Board (SAB) was a multiagency partnership made up of statutory and non-statutory partner organisations, who worked together to provide strategic leadership in adult safeguarding work and assurance of effective adult safeguarding procedures. The SAB Strategic Plan, 2022 to 2024, outlined 4 priorities of co-production, development of robust assurance processes, embedding learning from Safeguarding Adults Reviews, and governance. The local authority was represented at the SAB by the DASS, assistant directors of commissioning and the Principal Social Worker (PSW). Feedback from partners was the local authority was well represented at the Board and an active partner in shaping the agenda which helped to drive safeguarding forwards across all agencies.

Other multiagency partnerships aimed to prevent and respond to abuse in Sandwell. For example, the local authority was involved in a Slavery and Human Trafficking Operational Partnership and held regular multiagency meetings to review work in relation to modern slavery, human trafficking and sexual exploitation.

Safeguarding quality assurance systems included an annual report presented to the Health and Wellbeing Board and Health and Social Care Committee, file audits and weekly high-risk surgeries and a new practice and quality assurance framework. The PSW operationally oversaw safeguarding and DoLS. There had been challenges previously in safeguarding at Sandwell, however, following a management restructure and establishment of a specific team, there were now improvements. A set of further improvement activities were planned which included an Adult Safeguarding Staff Development Framework. Plans were to continue to improve and learn from their DoLS processes, to strengthen Mental Capacity Act 2005 knowledge and competency, to share learning from the Vulnerable Adults Risk Management process and continue to apply the strength-based audit tool to support quality assurance and learning.

Partners felt some elements of the safeguarding process could still be unclear as to what constituted a safeguarding or not, which had led to them possibly over reporting concerns before. However, other partners told us safeguarding was smooth in terms of raising concerns, with no issues and the safeguarding team were described as very helpful and responsive in offering support. The local authority was actively working with stakeholders to improve understanding of safeguarding thresholds.

Staff involved in safeguarding work were suitably skilled and supported to undertake safeguarding duties effectively. Staff attended local and regional forums to share and learn from good practice. The local authority told us there was a rolling programme of training and refresher training throughout the year with a variety of training also offered to care providers.

In terms of staff training, national data from the Adult Social Care Workforce Estimates for 2023/24 showed 45.74% of independent or local authority staff completed safeguarding adults training. This was considered similar to the England average (48.70%). The same data showed 29.97% of independent or local authority staff completed MCA/DoLS training and this was somewhat worse than the England average (England: 37.58%) which linked into feedback we received from the local authority that this was an area they planned to strengthen further with staff.

Staff were assured that they could speak up about poor care or abuse without fear of being treated unfairly, helping to maintain a culture where safeguarding concerns were more likely to be reported. A Whistleblowing Policy was in place and applied not just to employees but also to contractors, agency workers, volunteers, and people using services, encouraging anyone with a concern about abuse, neglect or misconduct to come forward and report this.

Lessons were learned when people had experienced serious abuse or neglect with action taken to reduce future risks and drive best practice. People had been involved in the local authority learning from Safeguarding Adults Reviews (SARs) which had been fundamental to changes to practice at Sandwell. Safeguarding Adults Reviews consider whether serious harm experienced by a person at risk of abuse or neglect could have been prevented and identifies learning to prevent harm in the future. A safeguarding subgroup monitored the progress of the reviews where action plans were developed.

In the last 2 years, 4 SARs had been published which had led to numerous changes in practice by the local authority including the establishment of risk surgeries for frontline social care staff, improved multi agency working, the development of a Learning Disability and Autism Team, and reviews of the supervision policy. Recommendations also influenced the Carers Strategy. All actions demonstrated a commitment from the local authority to reflect and embed key learning points from SARs.

A Vulnerable Adult’s Risk Management (VARM) had been developed in Sandwell from a SAR which aimed to support people with mental capacity to make decisions, who placed themselves at risk. During the process the person was supported by a group of professionals to better identify and manage risk. Partners fed back the VARM process was very positive, with their full involvement and that they were kept informed of outcomes at each stage. Local authority staff agreed this worked well. When cases were concluded, staff fed back any points of good practice and learning to the Safeguarding Adults Board.

Staff acknowledged previous challenges in relation to safeguarding work where the team comprised a high number of agency staff, however, they now had minimal vacancies. Senior staff said they were continually focused on performance improvement and whilst there were some excellent examples of Mental Capacity Act 2005 assessments, their quality assurance audits emphasised gaps and these were to be the focus of their learning and development programme for the next year.

There were clear understandings of safeguarding risks and issues in Sandwell. Staff told us there had been increases in some issues such as domestic abuse, modern day slavey and hoarding. Training was being offered for staff in response to this. Teams collected data in relation to safeguarding alongside providers to look at emerging themes.

As part of the Sandwell Hoarding Improvement Programme, a framework had been developed alongside a hoarding protocol and guidance to improve practitioners hoarding literacy. Hoarding training for staff had started in 2024 and was continuing. A hoarding conference took place in November 2024 involving key partners which led to the design and delivery of multi-agency foundation training workshops and hoarding improvement partnership events. This work had now begun to reach other Black Country districts and there were plans to involve people in this work who exhibited hoarding behaviours. From October 2025 a monthly multi-disciplinary hoarding hub was to be held for professionals to discuss cases where there were concerns about people’s hoarding behaviours.

Some partners told us they had not consistently received learning from safeguarding adult’s reviews and felt coordination with partner agencies could be better. The local authority confirmed training courses offered had included the learning from SAR’s and many organisations had attended these.

Improved safeguarding processes resulted in no safeguarding concerns awaiting screening by staff. Safeguarding concerns and enquiries were managed effectively across teams. The majority of the safeguarding contacts came through the enquiry team and were screened by a duty lead worker. Between 1 April 2024 to 10 March 2025, 8669 contacts were received as initial safeguarding and of these 1,660 were referred after screening. A total of 442 progressed to section 42 enquiries which was a 27% conversion rate. If the initial contact did not meet the threshold for a safeguarding concern, it was closed, with appropriate signposting, most commonly to the quality team for further action.​

If safeguarding concerns remained, the contact progressed, where it was allocated to a practitioner within 1 day, given a risk rating and dealt with having been considered against the eligibility threshold. The number of open contacts at the end of each month had steadily decreased from 560 on 1 April 2024, to 151 on 30 June 2025. The majority of abuse enquiries concerned occurrences in the person's own home where the alleged perpetrator was either a family member or a paid carer. The local authority reported that 98% of people’s preferred outcomes were fully or partially met in relation to section 42 enquiries and 98% resulted in a reduction or removal of risk.

There were no people waiting for a DoLs assessment. Every DoLS application was allocated a DoLS coordinator on receipt, with 127 applications being processed on 10 July 2025. The median time from request to decision to approve was 22 days. The local authority reported 1801 DoLS referrals received from 2024 to 2025. From July 2024 to June 2025, 91% of standard requests were approved within 28 days and 31% of urgent applications were approved within 14 days. DoLS Coordinators tracked deadlines and managed case administration and legal compliance. The DoLs team manager was due to commence surgeries for staff to aid their development and provide advice on potential community DoLs applications. Partners confirmed the DoLS team was responsive to review requests and carried out reviews in a timely way.

All data was closely monitored by managers to ensure safety and oversight in the system. Trends in referral volumes, open cases, and section 42 outcomes were reviewed regularly, informed the work of the Safeguarding Quality and Excellence Subgroup and contributed to reporting to the Safeguarding Adults Board. If themes arose in referrals, such as several falls in a particular care service, staff would then inform the quality and safety team. Closures were agreed by the appropriate managers with ongoing audits taking place to ensure consistency. Staff told us they had a direct and easy route to managers to discuss risks.

​Partners felt feedback on safeguarding enquiries was usually good, but not always consistent. However, the local authority was proactive in following up safeguarding referrals with requests for information. Care providers were supported by the local authority to share concerns around safeguarding and take required actions. It was raised by providers that sometimes when issues were raised with the local authority safeguarding team, responses could also be delayed, which was mainly due to cases being transferred to different staff and this resulting in further delays and miscommunication.

Safeguarding enquiries were carried out keeping the wishes and best interests of the person concerned at the centre. People had the information they needed to understand safeguarding. Data provided by the local authority from 1 July 2024 to 30 June 2025 stated 96% of individuals who expressed outcomes as part of Making Safeguarding Personal reported their outcomes were fully or partially met, and the risk reduced or removed in 97% of cases.

People could participate in the safeguarding process as much as they wanted to, and people could get support from an advocate. National data from the Safeguarding Adults Collection for 2023 to 2024 showed 100.00% of individuals lacking capacity were supported by an advocate, family, or friend. This was better than the England average of 83.38%. One partner told us they had been involved in the review of safeguarding systems and processes, and clear advocacy referral pathways were built into these which included a prompt for staff to consider advocacy at the start of the safeguarding process. There had been a positive increase in advocacy referrals since the changes were made and it was felt advocacy was supporting safeguarding processes appropriately.

Staff considered what a person wanted out of the safeguarding process, making sure they had a family member or advocate to ensure their voice was heard if they could not communicate this for themselves. In one example, through the VARM process, one person was involved in attending meetings and decision making which led to practical and emotional support being given to them resulting in a successful outcome.

Sandwell Safeguarding Adults Board Annual Report 2023 to 2024 highlighted the local authority were committed to making safeguarding personal. The local authority sought, obtained and used feedback to identify good practice and areas for improvement. Their safeguarding process and pathway document evidenced safeguarding practice was strength-based and the local authority was committed to ensuring the person was at the centre of the safeguarding enquiry process, recognised resources within the person's networks, took a whole family approach to support and obtained the person's preferred outcomes.

Partners told us the local authority offered safeguarding training to providers, with a range of training on offer including workshops. They were also given information on how to make safeguarding personal, which they applied. Providers found local authority staff to be knowledgeable and willing to share their knowledge and experience.