Profile of repeat victimisation within multi-agency referrals

To help reduce victimisation, safeguarding practices in England and Wales are becoming more multi-agency, with Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hubs (MASH) being a contemporary example of such an approach. MASH aims to reduce victimisation by identifying and managing vulnerability at the earliest opportunity. This is achieved through the co-location of safeguarding agencies, joint decision making and the co-ordination of interventions. Previous research has indicated that the demand placed upon MASH often outweighs available resources, questioning the extent to which MASH effectively safeguards vulnerable people at the earliest opportunity. Whilst existing literature has focused upon the characteristics of MASH referrals, alongside referral processes, rates of repeat referrals have been overlooked. This paper aims to bridge this gap by exploring the number of repeat referrals made over a two-month period to a MASH location in the north-west of England (n ¼ 2,134). By investigating repeat referrals, reasons why some individuals are susceptible to being victimised on multiple occasions are identified. The paper concludes that whilst MASH has taken a step towards identifying and managing victimisation, practices and processes need to be reviewed if MASH is to proactively prevent repeat victimisation

Investigating the Characteristics of Vulnerable Referrals Made to a Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub

Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hubs (MASHs) have been a feature of safeguarding processes since 2010, aiming to increase information sharing, joint decision-making, and co-ordinated interventions between safeguarding agencies. However, understanding the mechanisms underpinning MASH, and who they protect, is limited. This article attempts to bridge this gap in knowledge by quantitatively examining referrals made to one MASH location in the North of England between 1 October 2013 and 30 November 2014 (n=51,264). The findings outline general features of a MASH framework while demonstrating that demand placed upon MASH is influenced by a range of static and dynamic risk factors, including gender, age, and ethnicity. The study highlights the complex nature of referrals made to MASH and suggests that while MASH has taken a step towards a multi-agency approach to safeguarding, questions regarding MASHs ability to effectively safeguard vulnerable individuals at the earliest opportunity remain

Developing new portals to safety for domestic abuse survivors in the context of the pandemic

Abstract: This study examined the emergence and implementation of community touchpoints established in the UK during the COVID‐19 pandemic for victims/survivors of domestic abuse (DA). Community touchpoints are designated places, both online and in accessible settings such as pharmacies and banks, where victims/survivors can seek confidential advice and be directed to expert DA services. The research adopted a case study approach and explored a range of perspectives through expert interviews, document analysis, consultation with survivors and stakeholders and a survey of DA co‐ordinators. Four national community touchpoint schemes were identified and, of these, three were implemented rapidly and were available in 2020–2021 when the UK experienced lockdowns. Partnerships between Government/voluntary organisations and commercial businesses‐assisted design and implementation. Some stakeholders considered that the schemes lacked responsivity to the local context and noted challenges in providing a confidential service in rural areas. Whilst pharmacies, banks and online spaces were identified as non‐stigmatised and trusted places to seek advice, community touchpoints were judged less accessible for some groups including those experiencing digital poverty and victims whose movements were heavily scrutinised. Most of the touchpoint schemes targeted adults only. There were also concerns about whether frontline staff in commercial businesses received sufficient training. Whilst robust evidence of outcomes was limited, there were indications that the schemes had achieved good reach with some early evidence of take‐up. Testimonials indicated that victims/survivors were using the touchpoints in flexible ways which met their needs. Moreover, the wide reach and visibility of these initiatives delivered in non‐stigmatised settings may have served to raise public awareness of DA, reducing the silence that has traditionally surrounded it. Further research into the use and impact of these initiatives is required and there may be future potential to extend community touchpoints to include children and young people experiencing DA

Standardising multi-agency safeguarding hubs (MASH): Building a framework to effectively identify and manage risk

MASH has been a feature of safeguarding practices in England and Wales since 2011, bringing safeguarding agencies together to effectively share information and prevent organizational silos. Core agencies include the police, social care, and health, with key features of co-location, joint decision-making and co-ordination. A standardised definition for MASH implementation does not exist, and this lack of a clear definition has meant various structures have emerged, impacting on safeguarding practices. This policy brief draws on workshops with a range of safeguarding practitioners between May and July 2022, about the challenges of collaborative working practices and how MASH can become more standardised. Whilst national standardisation is required, there needs to be flexibility when implementing guidelines, so that practices and processes reflect regional needs and resources

Standardising multi-agency safeguarding hubs (MASH): Building a framework to effectively identify and manage risk

MASH has been a feature of safeguarding practices in England and Wales since 2011, bringing safeguarding agencies together to effectively share information and prevent organizational silos. Core agencies include the police, social care, and health, with key features of co-location, joint decision-making and co-ordination. A standardised definition for MASH implementation does not exist, and this lack of a clear definition has meant various structures have emerged, impacting on safeguarding practices. This policy brief draws on workshops with a range of safeguarding practitioners between May and July 2022, about the challenges of collaborative working practices and how MASH can become more standardised. Whilst national standardisation is required, there needs to be flexibility when implementing guidelines, so that practices and processes reflect regional needs and resources

Debate: Achieving public value in adult multi-agency safeguarding processes

Debate piece exploring the role of public value in adult multi-agency safeguarding settings

Corrigendum to:Protecting the Public? An Analysis of Professional Regulation—Comparing Outcomes in Fitness to Practice Proceedings for Social Workers, Nurses and Doctors

The original publication of this article, the spelling of author Kenneth McLaughlin's name has been corrected

Protecting the public? An analysis of professional regulation. Comparing outcomes in Fitness to Practice proceedings for social workers, nurses and doctors

The regulation of professional activity in the Health and Social Care sector in the UK is carried out by a number of statutory bodies that hold legal mandates to manage the risks of professional malpractice. The prime method used to perform this duty, and thereby protect the public, is the construction of a register of the suitability qualified - and creation of appropriate professional standards to establish a benchmark for practice. When registrant’s performance or conduct is felt not to meet these standards they are placed within a Fitness to Practice process administered by the regulatory body. This article examines the publicly available data on Fitness to Practice cases from UK regulatory bodies relating to the professions of social workers, nurses, midwives and doctors. Examining nearly 1000 cases, the authors run a statistical analysis of the data to establish whether any differences are found amongst and between these professional groupings. We find there are several areas where significant differences arise, namely gender, attendance and representation. Most of these regulatory bodies are, in turn, regulated in the UK by the Professional Standards Authority and the article concludes by suggesting ways forward for the PSA in addressing or further examining apparent inequalities. The analysis is placed within a wide range of literature, with an emphasis on the international transferability of the approach to professional regulation