Practitioner perspectives of multi-agency safeguarding hubs (MASH)

Abstract

Purpose The challenges of transferring the theoretical requirements of an effective multi-agency partnership into everyday practices are often overlooked, particularly within safeguarding practices. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to explore practitioner perspectives of working within a multi-agency safeguarding hub (MASH) and those factors that encourage or hinder a multi-agency approach to safeguarding vulnerable individuals. Design/methodology/approach Semi-structured interviews with 23 practitioners from one MASH location in the North of England were conducted, with a thematic analysis being used to analyse findings. Findings The interviews with practitioners illustrated the complexity of establishing a multi-agency approach to safeguarding. It was inferred that whilst information sharing and trust between agencies had improved, the absence of a common governance structure, unified management system, formalisation of practices and procedures and shared pool of resources limited the degree to which MASH could be considered a multi-agency approach to safeguarding. Practical implications Establishing a multi-agency approach to safeguarding is complex and does not occur automatically. Rather, the transition to collaborative practices needs to be planned, with agreed practices and processes implemented from the beginning and reviewed regularly. Originality/value Few studies have investigated the implementation of MASH into safeguarding practices, with this paper providing a unique insight into practitioner opinions regarding the transition to multi-agency practices. Whilst there is a focus on MASH, the challenges to arise from the research may be reflective of other multi-agency partnerships, providing a foundation for best practice to emerge.

Understanding how law enforcement agencies share information in an intelligence-led environment: how operational context influences different approaches

“…It was followed in 2011 by the UK MASH (Dunne and Finlay, 2016). Studies argued co-location improved information sharing as it generates trust and confidence, encouraging reticent agencies to accept their responsibility and contribute (Ramsay, 2009;Shorrock et al, 2020). However, more critical studies highlight its flaws, pointing out that agencies remain in cultural silos which promotes risk aversion.…”

“…Cotter, 2017;Lewandowski and Nestel, 2016), co-located agencies (i.e. Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hubs [MASH]; Shorrock et al, 2020) and technology-facilitated (i.e. Phythian and Kirby, 2022).…”

Assessment tools used in adult safeguarding practice within the UK and Ireland: results from a small-scale qualitative study

“…Finally, any consideration of the use of an assessment framework or tools within adult safeguarding requires an awareness of the divergent ways in which safeguarding functions. Whilst much work continues to be carried out within adult social care teams, there are also multi-disciplinary personnel and inter-agency teams being created to screen and initially respond to adult safeguarding referrals across the UK within Multiagency Safeguarding Hubs (MASH) that have been developed in certain areas (Shorrock, 2020). This reminds us of the need to consider the use of language and approaches that need to be commonly understood across a range of contexts and professionals.…”

Co-operation or unification: Is the future of police multi-agency working simply to become one agency?

“…The MASH would seem to be therefore an unequivocal success. There are however failings identified, stemming from the fact that each agency retains its own policies, practices and procedures and there is a lack of common governance (Shorrock, et al, 2019). There is also a concern around either real or inferred power struggles regarding both information knowledge and cultural traditions stemming from powers to act (Reeves, 2012).…”

“…There could for instance be a single unified ‘Public Protection Agency’, akin in establishment to the MASH, but rather becoming a ‘SASH’ – Single Agency Safeguarding Hub. This may provide significant opportunities to resolve some of the issues in respect of governance and power imbalances (Shorrock, et al, 2019) (Reeves, 2012). Failures around information sharing (Ofsted, 2010) would be prevented because it would no longer have to be shared; all practitioners would have the same intelligence through using common computer systems.…”