By the same authors

From the same journal

From the same journal

From the same journal

Models of Adult Safeguarding in England. Findings from a Study of Costs and Referral Outcomes.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Full text download(s)

Published copy (DOI)



Publication details

JournalBritish Journal of Social Work
DateAccepted/In press - 1 Feb 2016
DateE-pub ahead of print - 14 Apr 2016
DatePublished (current) - 1 Jul 2017
Issue number4
Number of pages21
Pages (from-to)1224-1244
Early online date14/04/16
Original languageEnglish


Adult safeguarding is the subject of increasing attention in England and internationally. This article draws on research which developed a typology of ‘models of safeguarding’. ‘Models’ refer to different ways local authorities in England organise adult safeguarding (about which there is little evidence) rather than ‘model’ approaches to be emulated.
The four models identified were: Dispersed-Generic (safeguarding work undertaken by operational teams); Dispersed-Specialist (safeguarding work undertaken partly by specialist social workers located in operational teams); Partially Centralised-Specialist (some safeguarding work undertaken by a central specialist safeguarding team); and Fully- Centralised-Specialist (all safeguarding work undertaken by a specialist safeguarding team). We explored associations between these models and other important variables (numbers of referrals, kinds of alleged abuse and characteristics of adults at risk) and
outcomes. The article reports secondary analysis of English local authority safeguarding referral data and on the possible different costs of different models. Dispersed-Specialist
sites appeared to have a higher rate of substantiating alleged abuse compared with other models. Statistical correlations were found with types of victim profiles and the perpetrator/victim relationship. It may be that decisions about local organisation of safeguarding are more affected by local organisational contexts than local authority model.

Bibliographical note

© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of
The British Association of Social Workers. All rights reserved. This is an author-produced version of the published paper. Uploaded in accordance with the publisher’s self-archiving policy. Further copying may not be permitted; contact the publisher for details

Discover related content

Find related publications, people, projects, datasets and more using interactive charts.

View graph of relations