Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hubs

Implementation and process evaluation

Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hubs

Highlights

  • Most local authorities in England now operate a Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH), but their structure and purpose vary widely.
  • This study theorised that MASH can be classified into two main models: one focused on assessing risk, and another which also assesses needs and plans preventive early help services for children. MASH seem to exist on a spectrum, according to how far a needs assessment and service planning function is performed.
  • This study suggests that for a MASH to work effectively, it should include strong practitioner relationships and a stable, skilled, and experienced workforce.
  • Parental consent for information sharing was highlighted as often being a difficult and confusing issue for practitioners.
  • When a MASH is working well, it should lead to:
    • Timely and relevant information sharing between practitioners
    • Multi-agency informed decision-making by children’s social care
    • A reduced likelihood of missing or underestimating risk to a child
    • Swift needs assessment
    • Enhanced practitioner confidence and wellbeing.

Report

Download

Implications for policy and practice

Download

Summary

MASH are local teams where professionals from different services—like social care, health, police, and education—work together to assess concerns about children’s safety and wellbeing. Most local authorities in England now operate a Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH), but their structure and purpose vary widely.

To better understand how MASH work, for whom and in what contexts, we commissioned UCL and Newcastle University to conduct an implementation and process evaluation (IPE), with funding from the Department for Education. An IPE focuses on understanding how an intervention or programme is put into practice, how it operates to achieve its intended outcomes, and the factors that influence these processes.

The study, conducted during a period of significant policy development in children’s social care, used accounts and views from practitioners in MASH and parents with experience of children’s social care involvement, to identify key components of MASH, their functions, mechanisms, perceived impact, and expected outcomes. The study was also guided by a National Cross-Government Steering Committee.

Aims

The main aim of this study was to understand how MASH work, for whom and in what contexts. The study achieved this by developing a programme theory. Below are the six key research questions of the study:

  1. What are the common components, functions, or features of a MASH?
  2. What are the main mechanisms (processes) by which we expect MASH to work?
  3. What is the perceived impact and for whom does MASH work/not work and why?
  4. In what contexts will MASH work/not work and why?
  5. What is the place of feedback loops, audits and quality improvements?
  6. If MASH works, what outcomes will we see?

Method

This study used a “broad–deep–broad” approach to understand how MASH operate across England. Researchers from University College London and Newcastle University began by reviewing existing research and analysing survey responses from 111 local authorities, giving a national overview of multi-agency front door services. They then conducted in-depth case studies in three local authorities, using interviews and observations to explore how MASH worked in practice. Finally, they broadened out again by holding a national workshop with practitioners from 40 MASH teams to sense-check and refine their findings. In total, the study involved 103 practitioners from 58 local authorities, as well as parents with lived experience of children’s social care. This layered approach helped the team build a rich, grounded understanding of both common patterns and local variation.

Key Findings

MASH operate along a spectrum — from those focused on assessing risk, assessing needs and planning early support to those mainly focused on assessing risk (with assessing needs and early support planning taking place in other parts of the children’s social care system). While both models have value, MASH which include risk, needs assessment and service planning were more widely supported by practitioners and parents, though it is more resource-intensive to deliver.

Supporting findings

Two main models of MASH:

  • Risk assessment MASH focus on identifying serious harm and ensuring urgent protection
  • Needs assessment and service planning MASH risk assess children and also aim to identify wider family needs and coordinate early help to prevent problems from escalating.

Practitioner experience:

  • Practitioners valued how MASH could improve decision-making, offer professional

Parent perspectives:

  • Parents supported the idea of early help but raised concerns about how information was shared—particularly when they weren’t informed or asked for consent. They also described feeling excluded from decisions and under surveillance.

Key challenges:

  • Confusion around when and how to seek parental consent for information sharing, with complexity where risk levels are uncertain, was reported as a challenge
  • Limited capacity in wider services can undermine MASH effectiveness, especially when referrals can’t be followed up with support
  • Some groups—such as care leavers, migrant families, and fathers—may be less well served by current MASH processes, though these findings emerged from a relatively small number of practitioner accounts.

Implications for Policy

This study provides insight into how to achieve effective multi-agency working, particularly in the context of children’s social care reform. A separate paper outlines the implications of this study for policy and practice in that context. These include:

  1. Safeguarding partnerships should consider whether MASH could support them to achieve the expectations set out in the Families First Partnership programme guide.
  2. Guiding principles for multi-agency front door services to children’s social care could be usefully developed and provided to the sector.
  3. Specific guidance and resources on parental consent for information sharing in multi-agency safeguarding contexts would be useful to the sector.
  4. This study strengthens the case for education to be made a statutory safeguarding partner.

 

Implications for future research

There are several recommendations for further research. These include:

  • Adopt a systems perspective: Future research should examine MASH and multi-agency front door services within the broader local system, considering their roles relative to other services. Isolating MASH risks misrepresenting best practices.
  • Expand qualitative research: Conduct in-depth case studies of diverse MASH models to test and refine the proposed framework, especially in areas responding to policy shifts or Ofsted findings.
  • Scale testing across local authorities: Apply and evaluate the framework across a wider range of local authorities to understand its relevance in varied contexts and identify emerging factors.
  • A dedicated study on consent: A study looking at consent for information sharing with parents and older children could have real value for those working in practice and help to identify examples of good practice.
  • Encouragement of further single agency studies: The evidence base would benefit from further detailed accounts from the perspective of other agencies such as police, health and education.

 

Linked Project

You can view the project linked to this publication here: 

An implementation and process evaluation of Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hubs (MASH)
SHARE

Related Publications

See all publications
  • Case Study, RPC Hub

Service and practice models

Involving families in reducing parental conflict (RPC) service planning

Learn More
  • Report

Service and practice models

Use of evidence-based tools and guidance in service design and commissioning

Learn More
Alliance House
Third Floor
12 Caxton Street
Westminster
London
SW1H 0QS
Linkedin
About Us
Our Strategy
Priority Areas
Our Team
Join our team
EDIE
Our Partners
Our Work
Publications
Tools
Current Projects
Reducing Parental Conflict Hub
Opportunities
Funding
Other Opportunities
News & Blogs
Events & Webinars
Press
Contact
Terms & Conditions
Privacy Policy
Data Archive
Foundations 2025. Foundations, the national What Works Centre for Children & Families is a company limited by guarantee registered in England and Wales with company number 12136703 and charity number 1188350.

Cost ratings:

Rated 1: Set up and delivery is low cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of less than £100.

Rated 2: Set up and delivery is medium-low cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £100–£499.

Rated 3: Set up and delivery is medium cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £500–£999.

Rated 4: Set up and delivery is medium-high cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £1,000–£2,000.

Rating 5: Set up and delivery is high cost. Equivalent to an estimated unit cost of more than £2,000.

Set up and delivery cost is not applicable, not available, or has not been calculated.

Click here for more information.

Child Outcomes:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.

Supporting children’s mental health and wellbeing: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Preventing child maltreatment: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Enhancing school achievement & employment: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Preventing crime, violence and antisocial behaviour: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Preventing substance abuse: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Preventing risky sexual behaviour & teen pregnancy: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Preventing obesity and promoting healthy physical development: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Evidence ratings:

Rated 2: Has preliminary evidence of improving a child outcome from a quantitative impact study, but there is not yet evidence of causal impact.

Rated 2+: Meets the level 2 rating and the best available evidence is based on a study which is more rigorous than a level 2 standard but does not meet the level 3 standard.

Rated 3: Has evidence of a short-term positive impact from at least one rigorous study.

Rated 3+: Meets the level 3 rating and has evidence from other studies with a comparison group at level 2 or higher.

Rated 4: Has evidence of a long-term positive impact through at least two rigorous studies.

Rated 4+: Meets the level 4 rating and has at least a third study contributing to the Level 4 rating, with at least one of the studies conducted independently of the intervention provider.

Rating has a *: The evidence base includes mixed findings i.e., studies suggesting positive impact alongside studies, which on balance, indicate no effect or negative impact.

Click here for more information.