If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Safeguarding Q&A 2025 - Ask your questions here!
TheMix
Posts: 3,169 Boards Guru
Hi everyone,
Welcome to our Safeguarding 2025 Q&A thread.
With recent changes due to the merging with Mental Health Invocation (MHI). We thought it would be good to host a Community Q&A about Safeguarding.
What is the Q&A about?
How we safeguard you at The Mix, Shout and the wider MHI. You can ask questions below about all of our services - these discussion boards, group chat, and 1-2-1 services like the Shout and counselling, even how safeguarding practices apply to our social media.
How long will this thread run for?
This thread will be ongoing and we'll keep answering your questions for as long as you ask them!
If you would like to ask a question annonymously, you can also do that here: [/b]https://docs.google.com/forms/d/12k44fPiMguy3ZQu12kk8bJAFuxQXQFRNjWb9UvrhJ7Q/viewform?edit_requested=true. A staff member will post your question on your behalf. Keep an eye on this thread to see the answer.
Who are the experts?
Joe, Sharon, Charlotte, Georgia and Deanna - all members of the MHI safeguarding Team. We will all introduce ourselves below!
📝 Note: this isn't a support thread
If you'd like to get some support with anything you're thinking or feeling, head over to Get Support and start your own discussion where everyone can support you.
What is safeguarding?
Safeguarding describes how we keep all of those unable to protect themselves safe from harm or risk. That means keeping you safe as an individual, making sure our services are safe overall and sometimes passing on information to help protect people wider.
'Safe' can mean keeping you safe from trolls or other unfriendly characters, keeping you safe if you or another member is at risk of harm, deleting triggering content, and much more.
Is there anything I can't ask?
We won't discuss real situations involving real people for privacy reasons, and we can't comment on other support services. You can ask questions on pretty much everything else.
If we don't know the answer to your question, we'll be honest and say that. We might be able to go away and research your question or point you in the direction of someone else who knows the answer.
When posting below please do keep our Community Guidelines in mind, including our commitment to remain respectful to one another and inclusive
We look forward to recieving your questions!
Welcome to our Safeguarding 2025 Q&A thread. With recent changes due to the merging with Mental Health Invocation (MHI). We thought it would be good to host a Community Q&A about Safeguarding.
What is the Q&A about?
How we safeguard you at The Mix, Shout and the wider MHI. You can ask questions below about all of our services - these discussion boards, group chat, and 1-2-1 services like the Shout and counselling, even how safeguarding practices apply to our social media.
How long will this thread run for?
This thread will be ongoing and we'll keep answering your questions for as long as you ask them!
If you would like to ask a question annonymously, you can also do that here: [/b]https://docs.google.com/forms/d/12k44fPiMguy3ZQu12kk8bJAFuxQXQFRNjWb9UvrhJ7Q/viewform?edit_requested=true. A staff member will post your question on your behalf. Keep an eye on this thread to see the answer.
Who are the experts?
Joe, Sharon, Charlotte, Georgia and Deanna - all members of the MHI safeguarding Team. We will all introduce ourselves below!
📝 Note: this isn't a support thread
If you'd like to get some support with anything you're thinking or feeling, head over to Get Support and start your own discussion where everyone can support you.
What is safeguarding?
Safeguarding describes how we keep all of those unable to protect themselves safe from harm or risk. That means keeping you safe as an individual, making sure our services are safe overall and sometimes passing on information to help protect people wider.
'Safe' can mean keeping you safe from trolls or other unfriendly characters, keeping you safe if you or another member is at risk of harm, deleting triggering content, and much more.
Is there anything I can't ask?
We won't discuss real situations involving real people for privacy reasons, and we can't comment on other support services. You can ask questions on pretty much everything else.
If we don't know the answer to your question, we'll be honest and say that. We might be able to go away and research your question or point you in the direction of someone else who knows the answer.
When posting below please do keep our Community Guidelines in mind, including our commitment to remain respectful to one another and inclusive
We look forward to recieving your questions!
Post edited by Katie on
4
Comments
What is the mix’s (and shouts) role in historical abuse cases? For example if an adult says that they were abused in childhood, whether by a parent or other authority figure? It could cover past domestic abuse as well if it was a partner and the person was a bit older.
I know it’s different for ongoing abuse, I used to volunteer for shout and I know the procedure for that, but I was just wondering about past abuse. If someone is out of that situation now and chooses to talk about it (which is tough in itself) would this raise a safeguarding issue for an adult?
Thank you @independent_ for your question. It's a good question and thank you for thinking about how it might affect others when you posted it. Me, Sharon, Georgia and Charlotte will have a look and put a answer together for you.
I’ll get on to my questions.
Why have you changed it- is it because of law?
Will you be removing the word annoymous that’s dotted around the site since it’s not really annoymous
Have you thought that this stops people reaching out for help and advice for serious situations in fear you will take their control and in turn makes their situation more stressful and a lot of cases may not help as if someone doesn’t want to take something further to the police or something then that’s hard for the police to take it further if they’re not willing to engage or give evidence
Do you think it’s morally right to go to the police about a situation someone has opened up about without their consent- if they’re not in immediate danger? Wouldn’t it be better to at least suggest they do it themselves and if you was convinced they wouldn’t then ring the police. Would get a better outcome if people aren’t forced into stressful situations which can make people retract But now with your safety guidelines people won’t even seek advice on things that might seem boarderline red flag behaviour let alone report the situation themselves now without others view or opinions in fear it will go somewhere else.
How comes you’re calling the police using the none emergency services so not immediate danger- yet you don’t even give the user warning or speak to them about it first. Will this change and learn from it?
How comes you’re ringing the police on past situations that are no longer a situation, isn’t this a waste of police time especially if the user doesn’t want it going anywhere?
Joe Wyatt - Safeguarding Officer at The Mix. Been here for over 3 years now so some of you might know me. In this role I support the teams in the day to day running of safeguarding for the two current key services (Counselling and Community). I also support a groups of young people who guide and direct the safeguarding work at The Mix.
My experience started in youth voice and youth campaign where I learnt all the basic safeguarding. I strengthened my safeguarding knowledge when I worked on a project where we had 16 to 25 year olds so crossed the child and adult safeguarding line. This was boosted by supporting safeguarding in sport (Ultimate Frisbee) as a volunteer. This led to jobs focused on safeguarding.
I enjoy empowering (where possible) people to do things to keep themselves safe. I also enjoy the problem solving skills I use when focusing on how I can help an individual best.
In terms of favourite things:
Food - Birria
TV Show - Love, Death, Robots or Dectectorists.
Book - Comic History of Beer
We will introduce Sharon, Georgia and Charlotte over the A&Q.
A little about me-
I worked for the last 10 years with adults and children with autism and learning disabilities, started as a support worker and worked my way up to residential care home manager. Safeguarding is a huge part of health and social care and I was always passionate about it which is why I came over to a more safeguarding specific role.
I loved, and still love, the opportunities I have to work with people in such a variety of circumstances and backgrounds.
A few of my favourite things-
My favourite food - Does iced coffee count as a favourite food? If not then it would be tomatoes!
Favourite TV show - of all time, that's really hard, The Last of Us for serious and The Good Place for laughing!
Favourite book - The People in The Trees by Hanya Yanagihara (tw for abuse)
- When a person talks about abuse, it usually means they have already had their rights taken away and their voice silenced by the abuser. If a safeguarding report is made without their consent, does this not risk disempowering them again? Would it not be better to encourage and support them in making their own decision about when and how to seek help, rather than taking that choice away from them? (Regardless of age)
-Are safeguarding decisions made on a case by case basis, or is it more of a standard tick box process?
-Do you consider how reporting might put the person at more risk? Sure I imagine that, police and social services do not always provide the support expected from them, especially in certain communities. For example, in my community (Irish Travellers), outside ‘help’ can sometimes do more harm than good. If a young person is not ready to talk with professionals themselves, and a report is made on their behalf, it could result in their family realising they have been reported.. that could then make their situation even worse. How is this risk assessed before a report is made? Is it?
- Are cultural differences considered in safeguarding decisions? In some communities, professionals themselves acknowledge that what might be seen as unacceptable elsewhere is more normalised within that culture. For example, my own social worker has told me that professionals (even herself) sometimes take a different approach when working with my community. Does this factor into how safeguarding is handled?
Sorry there’s loads there. I appreciate your time a lot
I have been a qualified Social Worker for 10 years and my experience prior to coming to SHOUT has been primarily working with children, I have ranged from working in Child protection, with children who are looked after and then supported families to re integrate children back to their family home or to prevent children from going into care/residential homes.
I enjoy the aspect currently of working digitally, which brings the ability to be able to help and reach more people and work with a variety of people with different needs. I love learning new things and this role I am constantly educating myself. I have always been an advocate of empowering people I work with to find and identify their goals in moving forward.
In terms of favourite things;
Food- Curry- the spicier the better!!
TV Show - Any drama that is based on a true story, anything by Harlen Coben and anything police related.
Film - Sister Act - number 2 is the better one!
We did had a few questions submitted through our anonymous question form (Link here) before we set up the A&Q so we will answer those first.
Question 1: When you report something to emergency services or non emergency places what information is usually passed to them other than the reason for the reporting?
When we refer onwards, we pass over the identifying information we have such as the person's telephone number or IP address, the summary of the concern and any risks/danger we feel there may be to the person being safeguarded. We also include any safety factors. We may be asked if we have ever contacted emergency services for that person previously as well.
Question 2: What would class someone as ‘an adult at risk of harm’?
There is a very specific criteria for someone to meet the adult at risk of harm threshold. According to legislation it is an adult who:
1.Is experiencing or is at risk of abuse or neglect,
2. Has needs for care and support (whether or not the authority is meeting any of those needs), and
3. As a result of those needs is unable to protect himself or herself against the abuse or neglect or the risk of it.
What this means is: It is someone who may need assistance (care and support) with aspects of their life, for example,
1. they are paralysed so need a carer to help them with daily living.
2. is less able to protect themselves because of their care needs, so for example the paralysed person is less able to independently go to the police station to report the abuse if they need a carer to take them out in the car; and lastly
3. is at risk of abuse or neglect; so the paralysed person receiving care has a relative who is visiting them regularly and behaving abusively.
Question 3: Do you tell the user your reporting before the report or is it always told after you’ve made the report?
We always aim to inform someone beforehand, in order to ask consent and for their identifying information. If this hadn't happened, we would always try to inform them after the report had been made. In certain circumstances, we may not be able to inform the person (for example, they disconnected a chat or we don't have a way to get in touch) - in those instances we still have to make a report if the safeguarding threshold has been met.
Question 4: Do the staff or whoever made the report get kept in the loop about what has happened with the report and the outcome?
For the most part, we do not hear back from any of our reports. Emergency services may get back in touch to ask for further information, but they do not provide updates on how the report has been progressed. Often we hear about the outcome from the The Mix user themselves. It's something we will ask about if the user getting back in touch, as we keen to hear they are getting long term support and will support them to find that if needed.
Hopefully these are helpful/ interesting, please let us know any follow up questions.
Curious about this mostly because I have a disability myself. Not an adult though😅
So if a person meets this threshold, does that mean, if you believe they are at risk you are for sure going to be reporting that on their behalf? Or are there exceptions?
I ask because a physical disability doesn’t always mean the person lacks capacity. From my understanding, capacity is about a persons ability to understand, and weigh up information to make a sensible decision. If someone is reaching out for support on the mix/shout, in theory, doesn’t this automatically demonstrate they have awareness to seek help themselves?
If a person if reaching out to the mix/ shout, the chances are highly likely they have a device which they need to report their situation themselves (if they want to and aren’t in immediate danger)
As a deaf person I personally cannot make phone calls and sometimes need help with day to day things but this doesn’t mean I lack capacity to report my own worries .
Are these general assumptions? Or are these discussed with the young person first. IE. Do you try and gage whether they have a device to report or (idk how to word this😂) do you automatically decide for them?
Curious how this works, because it’s kinda like that tick box question I asked above or is it something you decide as and when it pops up.
No digs either way. I know it’s kind of a tricky one and you have laws to follow. Mostly just curiosity on my side lol
Similar worries as a visually impaired person. I couldn’t get to the police station necessarily unless someone took me, but that’s just because I don’t know how to get there, but I would be perfectly capable of calling 999 or 101 if I had to. There are other ways of reporting that don’t involve showing up at a police station, and even if I could get there, they are a personal trigger for other reasons.
Who goes to police stations now a days anyway? My nearest one is hour & half away😅
Sharon Hibbitt
Prev experience: I have worked in safeguarding roles since 2003. I am a registered Social Worker having qualified in 2019. I have mostly worked in Youth Justice settings as a Case Manager, managing young people serving custodial and community orders and working in courts. I have worked in Child Protection and Children in Care Teams as a Social Worker and also in a unit for children who were subject to fixed term exclusions from school supporting them to develop skills to cope better in school.
What I enjoy most about the role: The variety of the conversations and challenges texter's face and providing support in the moment that can really make a difference.
Favourite TV show/film/food: I love watching crime dramas/documentaries and wildlife programmes. I like a variety of films depending on how I feel at the time. I am a vegetarian and love my food, particularly pasta, cheese and mashed potatoes - not all together!!
@independent_
Thank you for your question, opening up and reaching out for support about any abuse is brave and something we want to empower our service users to do. It is tough to share and talk about abuse and something that takes a lot of strength so where possible ensuring people hold autonomy is important.
If someone reaches out about historical abuse we want to ensure that they feel safe and able to share what they feel comfortable with. Generally, where there is any historic abuse disclosed and you were an adult when you shared this we would not need to break confidentiality and raise a safeguarding referral.
The only time we would break confidentiality is when there may be a child or adult at risk of harm who is exposed to or at risk from the perpetrator or the perpetrator is in a position of trust or working with vulnerable people. Where possible we would always want the person reaching out for support to be in control and if there are no risks present then we would support the service user to identify next steps and goals moving forward, however, in these situations we would need to consider a position of trust referral due to the ongoing risk to others.
Hopefully this answers your question
@Siena
Here are the replies to your questions:
Why have you changed it- is it because of law?
What changes that have happened, have happened for a a number of reasons. We are always listening to young people at The Mix, either young people using our services or young people that sit on Youth Voices Groups that have experience of The Mix or similar services. From this we have been able to make changes to the way that we do things and we are always reviewing what's best for the young people across three quite different services Helpline, Counselling and Community. It's because best practice in safeguarding changes frequently, there is a big push on better communicate between different services and organisations. There has been a lot of research that has led to more trauma informed approaches to safeguarding practices. There are changes in law around online spaces, mainly the Online Safety Act. The government are currently proposing new laws around mandatory reporting of child abuse which could result in further changes to when information has to be passed on so it is something that we need to continually review. There were two organisations coming together that had lots of similar thinking about safeguarding but also some differences that had to be worked out. MHI had recently gone through a safeguarding review by NSPCC (seen as the leads in safeguarding in the UK) which led to changes being made. The Mix hadn't had one of them for 3 and half years.
So in short there are many factors behind the changes in Safeguarding. Good safeguarding practice is always evolving and so it is important that MHI continue to review how we safeguard those who use the services.
As highlighted, communication of some of the change could have been improved. This is one of the reasons that we are doing another Q&A. It is something that we will continue to work on and aim to improve with the help and input of young people.
Will you be removing the word annoymous that’s dotted around the site since it’s not really annoymous
How anonymous Community is hasn't changed. The data we ask for to join the Community hasn't change. There bring lots of positives, such as less barriers to join, hopefully people feel able to share more. It does also bring challenges such as in many cases we have to report to the police due to the little information we hold about community members, they are the only services that can help us keep people safe because they are the only ones with the power investigate.
Have you thought that this stops people reaching out for help and advice for serious situations in fear you will take their control and in turn makes their situation more stressful and a lot of cases may not help as if someone doesn’t want to take something further to the police or something then that’s hard for the police to take it further if they’re not willing to engage or give evidence]
Simple answer to this one is yes, all the time. It's a consideration in every case we look at and every time we discuss thresholds (the time we believe we need to report this person's situation to someone else). This is one of the key reasons MHI have a 10 person safeguarding team working 24/7 to help make these decisions. We really do not want to stop people reaching out to us but the factors above highlight why, at times, we do report on safeguarding concerns. However, if we are clear about the circumstances in which we may need to pass information on, then the people who use our services will be able to make informed choices about what/how much they want to share and in that way can retain that element of control.
Do you think it’s morally right to go to the police about a situation someone has opened up about without their consent- if they’re not in immediate danger? Wouldn’t it be better to at least suggest they do it themselves and if you was convinced they wouldn’t then ring the police. Would get a better outcome if people aren’t forced into stressful situations which can make people retract But now with your safety guidelines people won’t even seek advice on things that might seem boarderline red flag behaviour let alone report the situation themselves now without others view or opinions in fear it will go somewhere else.
Morals are personal to all of us, and so our practice is driven by legislation and safeguarding best practice. Because of this, we can only comment on a safeguarding point of view including the factors as discussed above.
In terms of safeguarding there are still times when it's right to report without someone's consent when they are not in immediate danger. There are times when someone isn't able to reach out for support themselves, or times when people don't have the understanding to support themselves (Adults at Risk is being discussed on other questions and someone being a child especially someone under 12 years old are some examples). Sometimes, people may not be in immediate contact with danger, but there is ongoing risk that could become immediate danger; and a large part of safeguarding is trying to prevent significant harm before it occurs, so that is something to consider here.
Then there are times when professionals have to consider protection of the wider public. We can support and empower the person we are talking to keep safe but if we are aware the person abusing them has access to Adults at Risk or other children, we may still have a duty to act. In those cases, we may report without the person we are directly supporting giving consent, to protect those other people. People in certain professions have access to more vulnerable people, and/or power to subvert safeguarding procedures, so it is important these concerns are acted on.
There are times when it's unfair to ask the person being abused or at risk of abuse to take on the responsibility of reporting by themselves, or even them knowing enough information to report. So once again we would report without consent.
However, our aim is to be very transparent about our confidentiality thresholds, so that people do feel able to use the space to work things through, aware of the possible outcomes, and make informed choices about what they share.
How comes you’re calling the police using the none emergency services so not immediate danger- yet you don’t even give the user warning or speak to them about it first. Will this change and learn from it?
At least for the last 3 and half years, the Mix would make non-emergency calls. There are some examples above of when these calls would need to be made. We would also call if there was a threat to the services, our staff or our volunteers and if the threat was immediate or not. With the merger taking place we now have a better way to report this directly to a suitable team so that it can be dealt with appropriately.
Where possible we would always endeavour to talk to the service user to explain that we would need to report concerns on and try to do that together by gaining and sharing relevant details to the right services. In most cases you should be informed that information is being reported onwards, and this should be best practice.
How comes you’re ringing the police on past situations that are no longer a situation, isn’t this a waste of police time especially if the user doesn’t want it going anywhere?
We work closely with the police (both The Mix and MHI), with an agreement to pass on identified concerns, we regularly have meetings to ensure that our reports are appropriate and proportionate to the risks presented. As part of this working together they have given us a dedicated number to ring and access to a 101 reporting form that is designed for people they work in partnership with. We have worked closely with them to make sure our reporting fits in with their Right Care Right person practice. In some instances where we have identifying information we can contact local social services, this decision is made on a case by case basis.
We sometimes report on historical situations if there is ongoing contact or no professional awareness of the situation. Whilst the service user may not want information going further, we make measured and informed decisions to ensure that children and ARH are safe from harm as everyone deserves to be. Whilst it may feel to some that the situation has passed, there may be ongoing risks, we care about everyone's safety and do not feel it is a waste of time to ensure everyone is safeguarded from harm or potential future harm.
When a person talks about abuse, it usually means they have already had their rights taken away and their voice silenced by the abuser. If a safeguarding report is made without their consent, does this not risk disempowering them again? Would it not be better to encourage and support them in making their own decision about when and how to seek help, rather than taking that choice away from them? (Regardless of age)
It is always our preference to make a report with consent. However, when we have to make a report without consent, the view is that the safety of that person must come as the first priority. When making a Professional's referral to Adult Safeguarding, we have to confirm if we sought consent, and if not, evidence why not. I would also point out that Safeguarding isn't just about making onward referrals to other agencies - lots of our job is about identifying those people who need support, signposting, and empowering to advocate for themselves. Safeguarding team are behind the scenes working on guidance, resources, and practice to ensure that we enact that element of the role too, rather than just popping up when someone needs a report to police or social services!
Are safeguarding decisions made on a case by case basis, or is it more of a standard tick box process?
I can assure you, this is always a case by case basis. We as safeguarding professionals make considered decisions about risk, in line with safeguarding policies and legislation. We do not refer onward every single safeguarding concern, only those we have assessed as meeting threshold. Safeguarding processes can't really be done as a tick box exercise, as the legislation is deliberately non-specific about certain areas in order to encourage professional decision making!
Do you consider how reporting might put the person at more risk? Sure I imagine that, police and social services do not always provide the support expected from them, especially in certain communities. For example, in my community (Irish Travellers), outside ‘help’ can sometimes do more harm than good. If a young person is not ready to talk with professionals themselves, and a report is made on their behalf, it could result in their family realising they have been reported.. that could then make their situation even worse. How is this risk assessed before a report is made? Is it?
When we refer, we have to have an element of trust that other professional agencies, who are outside of our control as MHI safeguarding officers, will act appropriately. We understand that this is not every person's experience with these agencies. What we can do to mitigate the risk, is convey any concerns about this in the referral - i.e - communicate that a Person can't take calls in front of a certain person, or that they are fearful of physical repercussions for reporting, or that their social worker disregarded them when they disclosed something; if a person has made this known to us. It's worth mentioning as well, that it is up to those agencies how they act on the information. They may view it and decide no action is warranted, or may act on the information received. Our duty is to pass the information on, not to make an assessment about the best course of action for that person from agencies like social services or police.
Are cultural differences considered in safeguarding decisions? In some communities, professionals themselves acknowledge that what might be seen as unacceptable elsewhere is more normalised within that culture. For example, my own social worker has told me that professionals (even herself) sometimes take a different approach when working with my community. Does this factor into how safeguarding is handled?
Yes in as much as we aim as professionals to recognise and address any internal biases, and to act sensitively across cultures. However, when it comes to a lot of our referrals, a harm has been committed that has broken the law; i.e an assault, in those instances we still may need to refer onwards regardless of any cultural differences or normalised behaviours. Also, similarly to above, information can be included in a referral to highlight if you feel there are significant cultural factors to be considered.
Also please post any thoughts you have or follow up questions on the replies we have given. We are keen to have a two way chat about them.
I asked one above there about disabilities. No hurry to get back to that, just wanted to make sure it’s not missed 😅
When in term can make that decision on reporting something - for example- you say to a police man someone is abusing me. But the police man says who and you say I can’t say they say who - they say oh we can’t do anything about that if you won’t tell us who it is - so we can’t take it any further and will wonder why reporting it if they don’t know who (which is effectively what you do sometimes) - so that descion needs to be made by that person otherwise it won’t get anywhere. Just how if a user was to say on here someone is abusing me - you would report that to the police as that’s a big red flag but the police can’t do anything until they know who it is and while I would agree that is a safe guarding concern and needs to be stopped - you reporting it to the police will make no difference if the user doesn’t want to report it themselves if that makes any sense. It could in fact just cause a lot of stress - making them want to avoid it even more to avoid more stress when they have opened up on an annoymous site and they have just been exposed - making them feel twice as vulnerable and unsafe
that I hope you take on board from idk someone who has used annoymous places for a long time and have opened up and everything has improved and no police was called and some situations where it has made everything a lot worse and maybe something to keep in mind idk
I know you are not this type of site to keep things anonymous as much as you have done in the past. But in my point of view when things remain completely anonymous and the user has full freedom to say completely whatever they want to knowing it will not go anywhere - things get a lot further. They get other people’s perspective, they can see if what someone is doing is right or wrong from others help because a lot none emergency things people are scared to tell anyone in their real life - they may not open up to anyone else in their life in the fear of doing exactly what you do- report it straight away, they will feel more empowered and in control to help with any police investigation and answer any questions they have and they will feel less alone in doing so with online support.
I don’t know how Samaritans work anymore. I think their safe guarding stuff has changed but I remember reading something about how everything stays with them apart from something I forgot what. And they would say something along the line off opening up completely annoymous can keep that person safer. Because TW - For example someone ringing Samaritans telling them I am in a dangerous place rn and I plan on doing this right now and continplating it for a long time but more on the side of to do it - Samaritans won’t call the police eventho this is immediate danger because they believe they would of not opened up to anyone else about this situation cause it would go further and the person knows it won’t go further and just extremely scared to tell anyone in their personal life and so they have a chat and they end up changing their mind - they spoke to someone who gave them freedom to speak and let that person make their own choice which turns out better in the end.
Cause I do truly believe some situations like that - you open up think oh it’s annoymous they won’t ring anyone, it’s safer. And your worst fear is someone close to you finding out this while you’re still alive and before you know it you see police. Your heart goes extremely fast the world feels unsafe, you feel exposed and you get so implusive you do it there and then cause you’ll know that everyone in your personal life you never wanted to open up to about will now know exactly everything you wanted them to not know. and because when someone reaches out for help. There is a part of them that wants it resolved and doesn’t want to have what ever is happening to continue and giving them that space makes them realise that themselves and gives them opportunities to do it.
(This may or may not be from experience of one time of desperation of calling the Samaritans myself)
Basically, it relates to the position of trust thing. There’s a situation in mind where something that happened a number of years ago was reported with a person in a position of trust involved.
I obviously understand the need to report such things, but I wonder if it would be possible to do it in a way that wouldn’t be terrifying to the user? Police getting involved is frightening because people don’t understand what’s going to happen. It’s particularly the case if that trusted person was, in fact, a police officer. This may be a police issue rather than an issue with your reporting, but I wonder if communication with people could be improved?
Edit: another
I have read things in the news about certain services being required by law to report abuse. I’m sure it was something along the lines of any adult is required to report abuse of children. I’m just wondering if this is the case already?
Also, there seems to have been a hell of a lot of changes recently that don’t align directly with shout and I was also wondering if more changes are being made over there?
A big part of this site is about supporting young carers and young adult carers. So I think many will want to understand what qualifies as “not disclosed”? Is it a case of if someone is in contact with a service for young carers it wouldn’t be reported, and if they weren’t it would? I really, really don’t think this is a situation where police would be at all helpful, other than getting the details of the person in question.
And further to that, I agree with Siena above that there is a huge emphasis on reporting without consent. It happens all the time. I feel that services often say they will always try to ask for consent but in practice this rarely happens?
Don't worry we haven't missed you, we just didn't want to post too many replies in one day. Yours and @independent_ questions were link so we have answered them together.
So if a person meets this threshold, does that mean, if you believe they are at risk you are for sure going to be reporting that on their behalf? Or are there exceptions?
I ask because a physical disability doesn’t always mean the person lacks capacity. From my understanding, capacity is about a persons ability to understand, and weigh up information to make a sensible decision. If someone is reaching out for support on the mix/shout, in theory, doesn’t this automatically demonstrate they have awareness to seek help themselves?
If a person if reaching out to the mix/ shout, the chances are highly likely they have a device which they need to report their situation themselves (if they want to and aren’t in immediate danger)
As a deaf person I personally cannot make phone calls and sometimes need help with day to day things but this doesn’t mean I lack capacity to report my own worries .
Are these general assumptions? Or are these discussed with the young person first. IE. Do you try and gage whether they have a device to report or (idk how to word this😂) do you automatically decide for them?
Yes, we absolutely would explore if the person had means to report themselves, and if they were clearly able to, we wouldn't report on their behalf. For example, we would explore: Is this something you could call the police and let them know about? And you responded with - due to my hearing impairment I wouldn't be able to call them, however I can submit a 101 form online without any issues, then we would empower you to do that yourself. You are right that if someone is reaching out to Shout/The Mix, then it does indicate a certain ability to reach out, which is why the reports we make for adults at risk are in fact rare. We do explore someones options for reporting, and this can include asking if they have access to a device, if they are able to report, and if not then what the barriers are. If they are able to report and have no barriers then they wouldn't meet the criteria. We acknowledge that just because someone needs assistance with shopping, for example, that doesn't necessarily mean they can't protect themselves against abuse. It is complex because it is all linked together - what are their care and support needs, and do those care and support needs make them more vulnerable to abuse and less able to protect themselves because of those care and support needs? If someone has a moderate learning disability, for example, they may be able to text in to Shout but struggle to understand how to report something or how those processes work.
Tricky job, eh. I might’ve underestimated how much work ye all do. My bad 😅
Thank you for you thoughts on this @Siena. You are right in saying that the Police can not progress with an investigation without knowing who the perpetrator is although it maybe that other things can still be put in place to try to protect people from further harm. This may be from the Police or other services could be put in place to support that person even if they are not ready to disclose who has harmed them. It is also often helpful for the Police to know if someone is at greater risk to help them to make decisions about how to respond to any future contact with that person. Sometimes people do not report themselves due to fear of the consequences or they may be unsure of what the next steps would be if they do. By us reporting something of concern it provides an opportunity for the person who is in danger/at risk to speak up about what they are experiencing, to talk through their options and have the information that they need to make an informed decision about whether or not they want to disclose more. Everyone is different but for some people when that first step is taken they then have more confidence to speak out, whether straight way or sometime in the future when they are ready. You are also right that for some people this may be more stressful and it can be very daunting opening up about abuse but we want to ensure that we are supporting people to be safe from harm as a priority.
With regard to people in someone’s personal life knowing where the information has come from it is tricky to answer this without understanding a bit more about what you mean by this. However, any information shared by agencies should only be done on a need to know basis and the concerns and wishes of the person harmed should taken into consideration when decisions are made. In cases involving children it is likely that those responsible for their care will need to know as they have a responsibility to keep them safe but this can vary with age, every case is individual. In many cases the Police will try to contact the person that the report is about and have a discussion and this should provide opportunity for people to say anything that they do not want shared which could include where the information was disclosed, although we appreciate that it may not always be possible to keep information confidential particularly if withholding it will mean that someone is not adequately protected from harm.
Thank you for your comments @Siena. We understand that changes are likely to cause anxieties and lead to many questions. This was why we wanted to have this space to give a space for people to express their views, ask any questions and for us to answer them as best we can. By being open about the circumstances that we may need to report on we want to give service users control over how much information they feel comfortable to share. Although we do need to report certain situations onto other services, this will only apply to certain situations as in Charlotte’s post on 4th February. We appreciate that the control over what needs to be reported is taken away from service users at times and this is something that we take into account but the priority is ensuring the safety of our service users who may not be able to keep themselves safe from harm. We try to work with our service users wherever possible to empower and support them to report themselves.
I am not able to comment in detail on how Samaritans work but according to their safeguarding policy available online they work on the same principles as we do in that information may need to be passed to other services for children and ARH in both emergency and non emergency situations to help to keep people safe.
With regards to the non emergency situations discussed in the pinned confidentiality post. There is an example under there of a situation where a minor has caring responsibilities that have not been disclosed.
A big part of this site is about supporting young carers and young adult carers. So I think many will want to understand what qualifies as “not disclosed”? Is it a case of if someone is in contact with a service for young carers it wouldn’t be reported, and if they weren’t it would? I really, really don’t think this is a situation where police would be at all helpful, other than getting the details of the person in question.
As with many safeguarding issues raised, young carers is one we try to gain as much information about the situation to help make informed decisions. Where we have young carers we like to explore what life is like for the service user and establish what their caring responsibilities are, how this impacts the service user day to day and what if any professional involvement/support is in place for them, for example we would want to know if the caring was impacting their school attendance.
In short, we would not be making a referral onwards just because there is no professional involvement/awareness or support in place, we would assess the impact of the caring responsibilities on the service user and if these are impacting or detrimental to their own health and well being. Also if the service user and wider family/person they are caring for are safe. A safeguarding referral would be considered if we had information to suggest the responsibilities were having an impact on the service user, they needed support or if anyone was not safe.
When we know someone is working with young carer services, it would indicate they are being supported to an extent and there is awareness of their caring responsibilities, so if the situation appears safe and there is no lasting impact on the service user or the person they are caring for then again we would not need to refer onwards. Like many safeguarding situations we would always want to work with the service user to establish if they are able to reach out for support and where possible we would work with them to do that.
In situations where we have a young carer and we feel they may need extra support or it appears unsafe, we would ideally want to refer to social services as they are the best placed service to support the carer, we would try where possible to get contact details and make the relevant referral to the right service.
And further to that, I agree with Siena above that there is a huge emphasis on reporting without consent. It happens all the time. I feel that services often say they will always try to ask for consent but in practice this rarely happens?
Where possible we want to ensure that the service user has autonomy and we empower them to reach out to services, and that being said we want to work with people to gather details so that referrals are made together and sent to the relevant agency.
We always aim to be clear around confidentiality and that if we deem someone or others to be unsafe, we may need to pass on information we hold to other services. Gaining consent is the preferred route and best practice however, safeguarding does overrule and if there is someone who is at risk from themselves or others or the wider community then we have to ensure we act in their best interests.
This can feel difficult and frustrating when you do not want information shared; however, it is everyone's responsibility to safeguard and we make these measured decisions in the best interest of the people we are working with.
Thanks for your questions @independent_
Here are some responses from the team:
Question 1: I obviously understand the need to report such things, but I wonder if it would be possible to do it in a way that wouldn’t be terrifying to the user? Police getting involved is frightening because people don’t understand what’s going to happen. It’s particularly the case if that trusted person was, in fact, a police officer. This may be a police issue rather than an issue with your reporting, but I wonder if communication with people could be improved?
Ideally, if someone shares their details with us, we can report to social services. The reason that we report to the police is a. If a person’s danger is more immediate and/or b. If we don’t know which local authority someone falls under to report to social services. Social services can take reports of concerns for welfare or if we suspect that abuse is occurring, however if what we report to them is details of a crime such as an assault, they will most likely also instruct us to report to police or report to police themselves.
Question 2: I have read things in the news about certain services being required by law to report abuse. I’m sure it was something along the lines of any adult is required to report abuse of children. I’m just wondering if this is the case already?
There is a sentiment that Safeguarding is Everyone’s Business - that all adults should work to keep people safe, however there aren't any legal sanctions for failing to report abuse specifically. (i.e criminal charges) What we do have is Statutory Guidance - that anyone with concerns about the welfare of the child should consider referring onwards. This means that whilst the law does not dictate it, it expects it, and failure to follow the statutory guidance can result in professionals being struck off/ not able to practice, if the regulatory body of their profession has deemed that they did not meet the standards of the guidance.
Question 3: Also, there seems to have been a hell of a lot of changes recently that don’t align directly with shout and I was also wondering if more changes are being made over there?
Shout has expanded it’s Safeguarding team and had an Audit from the NSPCC - discussed in another response - which means that changes have occurred. We are constantly reviewing policies and practices to ensure we stay current with Safeguarding expectations.
I don’t think these are my questions @Sharon_Shout
@independent_ i think they’re yours my friend
Apologies - thank you @Faolan - you are right and that is my error - thank you for pointing that out!
@independent_ these were responses to your questions!