This assignment will evaluate the contribution of Multi Agency Safeguarding Hubs and will critically discuss the benefits and challenges and barriers of multi-agency working. 
Atkinson et al (2014) define multiagency working as practitioners and a variety of agencies working together jointly, sharing aims, information, tasks and responsibilities in order to intervene early to prevent problems arising which may have an impact on children’s learning and achievement. Multi-agency working involves the joint planning and delivery of coordinated services that are responsive to children and young people’s changing needs. 
Multiagency working first originated in the nineteenth century, where health and social services worked together in partnership to reduce poverty. However, it was not until the years of the Thatcher government in the 1980s that the foundations of multiagency partnership working were put in place. The Children Act was established in 1989 where there was a statutory requirement for interagency collaboration and joint working between agencies in relation to children and young people where professionals were required to “work better together”. In the 1990s multilateral partnerships were developed such as public, private and voluntary sectors working together to overcome issues such as social exclusion and community safety. There was a lot of strain on professionals and partnership overload began to occur. (Cheminais, 2009)
Several high-profile cases, such as the death of Victoria Climbie, Baby P and Daniel Pelka have brought attention to the catastrophic consequences that can happen when an agency withholds information that suggests a risk to a child/young person and does not share the information with other agencies. 
WAG, (2017) state successful multi-agency working should improve communication between the child or young person, family, school and professionals. Services should be updated to avoid duplication as well as clearly identifying which agency will be responsible for providing each element of provision. Creativity and flexibility should be encouraged, and good practice should be taken into account. Successful multi-agencies focus on solutions using a holistic approach where the child’s needs, views and opinions are the main focus. 
There are many benefits for educational settings when agencies work together successfully. Collaborative multiagency working results in the improvement of outcomes for children and young people due to the easy access to advice, support and services. Teachers have a greater understanding of multiagency practitioner’s activities as well as having knowledge on the services to refer pupils to, therefore teachers are able to fully concentrate on their main role of teaching. Collaborative multiagency working improves the partnership voice between professionals, building on consensus between services resulting in the breakdown of professional boundaries and narrow-minded attitudes. When agencies work together successfully mutual support is promoted where staff are encouraged to exchange ideas and share expertise, knowledge and good practice resulting in workloads being more manageable for multi-agency staff.  The co-ordination of services is improved and result in stronger relationships being formed, referrals are improved, and joint targets are addressed. Another benefit is that the understanding and awareness is raised on agencies and other professionals practice increasing the level of trust between professionals where they all know that they can and will deliver their job roles. Collaborative multiagency working aids joint planning for future multiagency developments. Staff morale is increased due to staff not having to work in isolation and having peace of mind that any issues can be resolved by all professionals and services working together whilst all having the same outcome in mind, resulting in enthusiastic and committed staff who have high expectations of themselves and each other.
Although there are many benefits of collaborative multiagency work, there are also many challenges that agencies may face when trying to meet the needs of children and young people. One of the challenges agencies may face is funding, there may be a lack of funding for multiagency training and development as well as conflicts over funding within and between different agencies.
Time is another factor due to some services having waiting lists. There is also a limited amount of time available for agencies to respond to a variety of issues. 
There may also be a risk of different agencies having a lack of knowledge and clarity on the roles and responsibilities of each other. It may also be challenging to find convenient times for all agencies to meet causing extra stress and pressure on professionals which could then have an adverse effect on staff morale. Another barrier to multiagency working is professionals trying to engage with non-compliant parents/carers or children and young people which may affect the child/young person’s needs being met due to one of the main focus of multiagency working being a holistic and child centred approach, ensuring children and young people and their parents/carers having full involvement in decisions made about them and have their voices heard. 
Tuckman (1965) states that in order for a team to work together successfully, they have to go through these four stages. The first stage is called “forming”, where the team meets and forms together. This is followed by the “storming” stage in which the team shares their own ideas and where some debating may take place. The third stage which is the “norming”, where all members of the team have gotten used to each other and know what is expected of them. The final stage is the “performing stage”, where the team then work together to achieve their end goal. However, a barrier to this theory is any new members being introduced to the team  may change the dynamics of the group therefore moving the process back to the forming stage and effecting the performance of the group.
Every Child Matters (ECM) is a policy that was introduced in England in 2006. It was put in place to improve the sharing of information between different agencies. ECM established a Common Assessment Framework for all agencies to follow. One of ECM’s main focus is that multi-agency teams should have a child centered approach. 

Cheminais, (2009) state there are a variety of associated terms and theories that are used when describing multi-agency working which reflect a range of structures, approaches and rationales such as inter-agency working, which is when up to two agencies work together, they work together in a more formal and planned manner. Integrated working involves practitioners working together whilst implementing mutual processes to deliver services where the needs of children and young people the main focus. The new philosophy of multi-agency working may be better described as partnership working, which refers to the methods that build relationships between a range of professionals and services at different levels all in order to reach the same target.    
There are a number of levels that multi-agency services are delivered such as through multi-agency panels, multi-agency teams and integrated services. They involve practitioners that are employed by their home agencies that agree to meet regularly as a panel. The panel has a co-ordinator or chair person who manages the panel. There are a variety of practitioners working in different agencies such as education workers, health professionals, social workers and youth justice practitioners working together on the panel. One of the benefits of multi-agency panels is that if there are a variety of professionals for different agencies meeting regularly there should be positive results due to the variety of expertise from professionals. Another benefit of multi-agency panels is due to practitioners remaining involved by their home agencies there will be no human resources or recruitment issues. Practitioners also remain up to date on the happenings in their home agencies as well as still having access to staff training and development opportunities. However, there are a number of challenges multiagency panels may face such as representatives of the panel having a tendency to identify with their own agency rather than their role with the panel. Another challenge is that panel members may not be given enough time to carry out responsibilities and casework work with the panel, especially if these work-loads are in addition to duties they are required to do in their home agency. Due to the lack of frequent contact it may also make it challenging for practitioners to develop good outcome focused partnerships in comparison to the contribution of individual agencies. (Lancashire County Council, 2015)
Multi-agency teams are more formal than multi-agency panels due to practitioners being seconded or recruited into the team. There is a range of education, social care, health and youth workers involved in the team who are involved in working with a variety of services at a multitude of levels, not only do they work with children and young people but also with families and whole schools. There are many benefits of multiagency teams due to co-working being the teams core approach. They also work in a place that is easily accessible to all workers enabling all agencies to communicate at ease. It is also easy to facilitate joint training for agencies due to them being based at the same place. However, there are some challenges and barriers that multi-agency teams may face such as agencies having to set aside time and resources for team building and development. It is also vital that multi-agency teams have a positive relationship with other agencies such as schools to ensure the child or young person’s needs are met.  (Lancashire County Council, 2015)
“The key feature of an integrated service is that it acts as a service hub for the community by bringing together a range of services, usually under one roof, whose practitioners then work in a multi-agency way to deliver integrated support to children and families” (Lancashire County Council, 2015). 
Integrated services consist of a variety of services that work in a co-ordinated way to address children and young people’s needs, they share a common location, having the same vision and principles for working with children and young people and their families. The service is usually based in an early years or school setting. One of the benefits of integrated services is that they provide a good chance in addressing a wide range of issues in a common setting without stigma. There is also a better co-working and sharing of skills and knowledge between different agencies. Another benefit is that communication between different agencies is enhanced due to them sharing the same location. The challenges integrated services may face are that they have to develop a combined service in order for staff to identify more with the new service rather than their role in their home agency. The management of any issues around pay and working conditions may be a challenge due to staff working in different agencies therefore will be receiving different levels of pay. Integrated services require staff to think outside the box over the planning of the setting and their aim in the community. It may also be a challenge to bring a variety of partners on board through joint leadership. (Lancashire County Council, 2015)
The Welsh Government developed Children and Young People: Rights to Action in 2004, the policy included “7 Core Aims” which follow the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) as the basis of working with children and young people. This included making decisions on priorities and national objectives and forming the basis on decisions on local service provision and strategies. The first aim of the seven core aims is that children have a flying start in life. “By the time children reach the age of 7 we want them to have the right foundations for good health, be actively engaged in learning and be equipped with the skills to reach their full potential” (Welsh Government, 2015). The early years of a child’s life is critically important and the support for the child happens before birth, where different agencies work together with the mother and family to ensure the baby has the best start in life. Sure Start schemes were introduced in 2003/4 for young children from birth to three years. The scheme ensures health, early education and social services work together to provide support to help expectant mothers and the family.
The second core aim is that children are provided with a comprehensive range of education and learning opportunities. The third core aim is to ensure all children experience the best possible health, having equal access to health services and facilities as well as having freedom from abuse, victimisation and exploitation. Core aim number four is that all children and young people have access to play, leisure, sporting and cultural activities. The fifth core aim is that all children have full participation in decision making, ensuring their voices are heard, treated respectfully and have their race and culture recognised.
The sixth core aim is to make sure children live in a safe home and are part of a community where their physical and emotional well-being is supported.
The final aim is to make certain that children and young people are not disadvantaged by poverty. The Seven Core Aims state that all agencies and services working with children such as health and social services and educational settings are responsibly for safeguarding children from abuse, neglect and exploitation. The agencies and services work together to make integrated assessments and pool their knowledge of the circumstances of individual children, understand the needs of individual children and identify interventions that are most likely to effective. An Integrated Children’s System (ICS) has been formed to support agencies working with children in need and their families. The purpose of the ICS is to capture the information practitioners need to support their work with children and their families.
WAG, (2004) state that all agencies and services should have a mutual approach to processes of assessment, the reviewing of cases, care plans and intervention to prevent the duplication and delay that can be a result of different agencies and services overlap and do not join up. This approach would encourage the development of a common language between agencies and services for describing and understanding the needs of children and young people.
Local Authorities have developed Multi Agency Safeguarding Hubs (MASHs) to reduce the risk of anyone “slipping through the safeguarding net” (Home Office, 2014). “Multi-agency Safeguarding Hubs are structures designed to facilitate information sharing and decision making on a multi-agency basis in a co-location. (Social Care Institution for Excellence, (2014)
The agencies that should be involved in a MASH are social services, police, health services, education, probation services, housing services and youth offending services. 
The Home Office (2014) state all of the local authorities who have established a MASH reported that outcomes for children and their families were improved. The first benefit of successful MASHs to be discussed is that they provide a more precise assessment of risk due to decisions on safeguarding being based on “co-ordinated, sufficient, accurate and timely intelligence” (Home Office, 2014, p.8). A crucial feature of this is due to MASHs having the capacity to gather and share information from a variety of sources as staff from different agencies are based in the same location, therefore helping to build an all-inclusive representation of cases in a more concise manner resulting in a decrease in repeat referrals. Another benefit is the management of cases in MASHs are more comprehensive and focused, ensuring issues and leads are followed and dealt with accordingly therefore reducing the risk of cases getting lost in the system. Due to professionals working together there is a better understanding between them in respect of the language used and the overall method in approaching safeguarding. Home Office (2014) state that bringing practitioners together results in improved standards in safeguarding and increased confidence in professionals to share information.
The final benefit to be discussed is MASHs can provide an increased productivity in procedures and resources.  Agencies working together in a co-location can reduce the risk of the repetition of procedures across agencies, allowing agencies to work together and agree on the procedures they are accountable for thus providing a more efficient management and range of resources. However improved competence will not essentially mean the workloads of agencies will be lowered. The Home Office (2014) states there can be an increase in referrals upon the implementation of a MASH as safeguarding issues that would not have been known may bring to light an increase in the number of serious cases, therefore increasing the workload for MASH practitioners. This increased workload on MASH practitioners could lead to a degradation in the quality of service provided.
Some MASHs use an integrated IT system which is a system used by all agencies to share and log clear and vital information on cases allowing transparency for all cases, if a MASH lacks integrated IT system this could be a barrier to effective multi-agency working. However, The Munro Review (2011) reported that IT systems will not be successful unless all individuals from different agencies co-operate around meeting the needs of the individual child. 
Although there are many benefits to MASHs there are also barriers and challenges they may need to overcome. Staff may not understand what information they can share therefore children and young people’s needs may not be met. In order to overcome this barrier guidance for practitioners need to be improved. The Home Office (2014) state that there may be a lack of clarity for professionals as to who is accountable for the MASHs they are working in. This barrier could be overcome by MASHs forming an Operation Group to manage staff activity and ensure work is completed on time. The operation group would also be responsible for forming staff working groups in order for the successful delivery of the vital factors of the project.
To conclude multi-agency working has played a role in society since the nineteenth century to reduce poverty however the foundations of multi-agency working were not put in place until the 1980s. “Committees must ensure the services to children and families are properly coordinated and that the inter-agency dimension of this work is being managed effectively” (Laming, 2003). Serious case reviews such as Victoria Climbie resulted in new policies being developed such as Every Child Matters in England and Children and Young People: Rights to Action in Wales which includes seven core aims that follow the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child. 
Multi Agency Safeguarding Hubs have been established in many Local Authorities where practitioners from different services such as health and social services, education, police, housing and youth services work together in a co-location to safeguard service users and ensure their needs are being met. There are many benefits to MASH such as due to working in the same location it provides a more precise assessment of risk, a more comprehensive and focused approach towards the management of cases and an increase in the productivity in procedures and resources. However, the barriers and challenges that MASHs may face are a greater workload due to more safeguarding issues being referred due to the implementation of MASHs, staff confusion on what information can be shared and a lack of clarity between staff as to who is leading the MASH.  Gasper (2010) defines multi-agency working as non-judgmental and open approaches to care where dialogue, reflection and discussion help shape policy and practice and where contributions from all are encouraged and everyone is valued. Successful multi-agency working requires practitioners taking a holistic approach. A common language should be used between professionals as well as all professionals having an understanding of their own job role and what is expected of one another.  There are also barriers to successful multi-agency working such as time, funding, heavy workloads and understanding of job roles.