Content area
Full Text
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 (Crawford and L’Hoiry, 2015; Donnelly et al., 2017). The advantages of working across professional boundaries are associated with improved service delivery, better use of resources and reduced opportunities for vulnerable individuals to slip through the net (Fyson and Kitson, 2012). Whilst such partnerships may be advantageous in terms of addressing complex public issues (Larkin and Fox, 2009), research has demonstrated that achieving successful collaboration is difficult to implement (Stanley and Humphreys, 2014). The establishment of an effective collaboration is often linked with an expectation for agencies and practitioners to seamlessly merge their organisational cultures and working practices. Such expectations can be problematic since safeguarding agencies generally develop cultures that reflect their role within society (Hatch and Cunliffe, 2013), with practitioners often unwilling to move away from their traditional working practices (Crawford and Evans, 2017). Other factors that may undermine the development of a successful partnership include an inability (or reluctance) to share information effectively, limited understandings of roles, differences in organisational priorities and thresholds and limited involvement of key agencies (McCreadie et al., 2008).
Successful partnerships depend upon the establishment of a clear division of labour and hierarchy of authority, with rules and procedures being jointly agreed upon,...