The version in the Kent Academic Repository may differ from the final published version. Users are advised to check http://kar.kent.ac.uk for the status of the paper. Users should always cite the published version of record.

Citing this paper Please note that where the full-text provided on King's Research Portal is the Author Accepted Manuscript or Post-Print version this may differ from the final Published version. If citing, it is advised that you check and use the publisher's definitive version for pagination, volume/issue, and date of publication details. And where the final published version is provided on the Research Portal, if citing you are again advised to check the publisher's website for any subsequent corrections. General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the Research Portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognize and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.•Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the Research Portal for the purpose of private study or research.•You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain •You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the Research Portal Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact librarypure@kcl.ac.uk providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Findings: Several models of practice were identified. Confirming a central theme reported in the literature, the extent and nature of specialism within safeguarding practice varied. Safeguarding specialists were reported to be based in centralised teams or were located as specialists in locality social work teams. In some areas the role of specialist safeguarding practitioners was linked to an analysis of risk severity or location of the concern. Other areas emphasised the importance of safeguarding work as the core of mainstream social work practice.Applications: These findings offer a basis for analysis and managerial considerations about the implications of different organisational models of adult safeguarding. These may be relevant to option appraisals and decision making about future organisational planning.

No abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to describe the methodology being used in a study exploring the organisation of adult safeguarding. Design/methodology/approach -A mixed-methods study is presented which describes how the research team is seeking to identify models of adult safeguarding and then compare them using a quasi-experimental study design. Findings -Close examination of this study's methodology highlights the potential value of mixed-method research approaches. Research limitations/implications -Anticipated study challenges include difficulties with gaining agreement from study sites and recruitment of people who have been the subject of a safeguarding referral. Originality/value -This will be the first study in England to identify and compare different models of adult safeguarding in depth. Outlining and discussing current methodology is likely to be of interest to practitioners, managers and other researchers and policy makers.

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 outcomesThe 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.