Practitioner perspectives of multi-agency safeguarding hubs (MASH)
| Pages | 9-20 |
| Published date | 25 November 2019 |
| Date | 25 November 2019 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JAP-06-2019-0021 |
| Author | Sarah Shorrock,Michelle M. McManus,Stuart Kirby |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Vulnerable groups,Adult protection,Safeguarding,Sociology,Sociology of the family,Abuse |
Practitioner perspectives of multi-agency
safeguarding hubs (MASH)
Sarah Shorrock, Michelle M. McManus and Stuart Kirby
Abstract
Purpose –The challengesof transferring the theoreticalrequirements of an effective multi-agencypartnership
into everydaypractices are often overlooked,particularly within safeguardingpractices. Therefore,the purpose
of this paper is to explorepractitioner perspectivesof working within a multi-agency safeguardinghub (MASH)
and those factorsthat 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.
Keywords Qualitative, Safeguarding, Policing, Collaboration, Multi-agency safeguardinghubs,
Multi-agency partnerships
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Serious case reviews have concluded that a lack of information sharing between agencies has
resulted in vulnerable individuals being unnecessarily exposed to harmful or abusive situations
(Preston-Shoot, 2017). In response to such criticisms, safeguarding policies and guidelines now
advocate a need for safeguarding agencies to work more collaboratively, so that vulnerability can
be identified and managed at the earliest opportunity (Care Act, 2014). To reflect this move
toward agency collaboration, multi-agency safeguarding hubs (MASHs) were introduced in
2010, with the co-location of practitioners aiming to increase information sharing and joint
decision-making (Home Office, 2014). The extent to which MASH has increased collaboration
between safeguarding agencies has not been well documented, making it difficult to establish
whether the recommendations of serious case reviews have been transferred into everyday
practices. This paper explores the operational functioning of MASHs through practitioner
experiences highlighting the reality of co-located safeguarding approaches to vulnerability.
Literature review
Multi-agency partnerships have become a central feature of safeguarding practices, with serious
case reviews, documents and policies outlining the benefits of agencies working collaboratively
Received 28 June 2019
Revised 19 September 2019
10 October 2019
Accepted 18 October 2019
Sarah Shorrock is based at the
University of Central
Lancashire, Preston, UK.
Michelle M. McManus is based
at Public Health Wales,
Cardiff, UK.
Stuart Kirby is based at the
University of Central
Lancashire, Preston, UK.
DOI 10.1108/JAP-06-2019-0021 VOL. 22 NO. 1 2020, pp. 9-20, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1466-8203
j
THE JOURNAL OF ADULT PROTECTION
j
PAG E 9
To continue reading
Request your trial