The document outlines a vision, need for change, and model for a multi-agency safeguarding hub (MASH). The vision is to identify and protect vulnerable people through information sharing across agencies. There is a need for change due to missed opportunities and lack of a single intelligence view. The MASH model aims to provide early identification of risk, identify victims, and reduce harm through partnership working and intelligence analysis. Key outcomes include risk assessment, safeguarding concerns, and early intervention.

1. Nigel Boulton
Briony Ladbury
Marisa De Jager

2. The vision
‘to identify and make safe at the earliest opportunity all
vulnerable people in our communities through the
sharing of information and intelligence across the
safeguarding partnership’

3. The need for change
• Catalogue of learning and missed opportunity
• Evidential and research base
• Inhibitors to information sharing and inter-professional
practice
• No single intelligence view – Structural barriers
• Early intervention or unsustainable dependency

4. The model and outcomes
• Rules which make it work – inhibitor driven
• Three outcomes
Early identification and understanding of risk & harm
Victim identification and intervention
Harm identification and reduction
• Children & adults – intelligence prerogative
• Power of inter-professional practice

5. Concern from
police
Concern from
public
Concern from
professional
Risk not fully clear from single
agency information;
MASH Enquiry needed
Partnership intelligence
shared & analysed
Sole Agency screening (triage) at initial stages to apply the local threshold (Tier
1,2,3,4 = RAG) based upon robust Risk Assessment with consent clarified.
Substantial risk requiring immediate
intervention/ assessment
Outcome (s)
Safeguarding concern identified
Option
The model and process

6. Children and families embedded in decisions
• Eileen Munro recommendation (2011)
• Connectivity and risk assessment - Proportionate decisions
drive early intervention
• Step up and down reflect continuum of need levels
• Early intervention at any age for child or young person
• Early help services co-ordinated to improve outcomes
• Earliest identification essential to deliver 3 outcomes

7. ‘Working Together’ ?
• Rhetoric:
 Integration
 Innovation
 Improvement
INTER-PROFESSIONALlSM
Change
•There needs to be a bigger, faster & real shift to partnership working at
every level -
Strategic (senior management /commissioning/LSCB)
AND Practice – across the needs continuum
SW
Others

8. Intelligent Assessment
• Pre-referral – promoting a full understanding of the risk/need
• Maintaining appropriate boundaries
• Using established agency structures
• Using accepted risk/needs assessment frameworks
• Triage stage (MASH professionals must)
• Know what information to share and why – in context and
proportionate (who needs to know? What do they need to know?
• Know the law – Data Protection Act, Human Rights Act, Sexual
Offences Act, Gillick Competency, UNCRC
• Decision - made by SSD, but informed by partners and shared
with partners
• Planning - Significant harm & early help – partnership approach
with agreed thresholds + understanding of what they mean
• Review - Responsibility of all partners
Innovative
integrated
service delivery
through
inter-professional
Practice

9. Inter-professionalism - How?
 Behave as equal partners
 Are prepared to co-operate
 Change/innovate
 Are self-aware
 Are active listeners
 Are active participators
 No hidden agendas
 Respectful of professional
boundaries
 Trust
 Know own limitations
 Agree tasks and processes
 Are courageous
 Willing to educate, explain,
challenge and escalate
 Promote a shared vision/goal
 Understands political context
 Overcome inhibitors
Good for macro planning
(setting up a service)
Good for micro planning
(setting up a multi-agency
care plan for a family )
Jon Katzenbach, author of The Wisdom of Teams, observes..
“There is virtually no environment in which teams, if done right, can’t have a measurable
impact on performance
SITTING TOGETHER IS NOT WORKING TOGETHER

10. Outcomes and benefits
• University of Greenwich 2013
Overcome inhibitors
Delivered ‘Confidence and Trust’
Necessary & proportionate interventions
Risk levels rise and fall during process
Faster decisions
• ‘Drip drip’ effect identified and acted upon

11. Conclusions
• Model has and will address failures to share and communicate
• Victims and families seen and heard
• Interventions and prevention – Necessary & Proportionate
• Represents new and enhanced inter-professional practice

12. nibconsulting.co.uk
nib (consulting) ltd
email - info@nibconsulting.co.uk
nigel@nibconsultinguk
- delivering a whole new way of working together