Multi-Agency Practice, Information Sharing, Review Learning, Racism, Domestic Abuse and Prevent
Data protection is not a reason to withhold safeguarding information. Domestic abuse, racism, attendance and poor coordination are often part of the same picture — and Prevent should sit within wider safeguarding, not beside it.
Reviewed against Working Together 2026 · Information Sharing Advice · CSPR · Prevent Duty Guidance · May 2026
Why this matters
The Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel 2023–24 annual report identifies poor coordination between services and weak information sharing as among the most common causes of harm. These are not system failures that happen elsewhere. They begin when a school decides a concern is not its business to share, or when a DSL attends a multi-agency meeting without having read the local arrangements. Working Together 2026 places education explicitly within the local safeguarding architecture — engaged, visible and accountable.
What the guidance expects
- 01Schools must know their local safeguarding arrangements, threshold document and yearly report. (Working Together 2026)
- 02Data protection legislation does not prevent necessary, proportionate safeguarding information sharing. (Information Sharing Advice)
- 03Rapid reviews must explicitly consider racism and structural inequality. (CSPR Panel Guidance 2025)
- 04Prevent should be embedded in wider safeguarding — not treated as a separate track. (Prevent Duty Guidance)
- 05Domestic abuse is a child safeguarding issue — children affected are victims in their own right. (Domestic Abuse Act 2021)
Keep local arrangements in one school-facing folder
The folder should contain: local threshold document, yearly report, escalation pathway, Prevent contact and referral route, Family Help pathway, domestic abuse referral route, and education representation in local forums. Every DSL and deputy should know where it is.
Train staff on the seven golden rules of information sharing
The most common information-sharing failure is misunderstanding. GDPR does not prevent necessary, proportionate safeguarding information sharing in almost any realistic school scenario. Train staff to understand when sharing without consent is both lawful and necessary.
Add domestic abuse and race/racism prompts to case discussions
In every case review: has domestic abuse been considered? Has race been considered? Has structural inequality been named? These questions should be on the standard case discussion agenda — not raised only when a case goes wrong.
Embed Prevent within existing safeguarding policy
Prevent should not have a separate policy, separate training and a separate lead who has nothing to do with the DSL. It sits within safeguarding. The DSL or a trained deputy owns it. Risk assessments, referral routes and visiting speaker protocols all connect to wider safeguarding practice.
Build anti-racist reflection into all case reviews and audits
Ask in every case review: has the child's race, culture or language influenced professional assumptions? Has structural inequality been named and addressed? Build these questions into audit templates and chronology standards.
Quick check
0/5 yesOfficial sources
Working Together to Safeguard Children 2026
Relevant agencies, published arrangements, yearly report, escalation routes.
Information Sharing Advice for Safeguarding Practitioners
Seven golden rules. GDPR does not prevent necessary safeguarding sharing.
Race, Racism and Safeguarding Children — National Review
Requirement to consider race and structural inequality in rapid reviews and CSPRs.
Prevent Duty Guidance
Education capabilities, risk assessment, referral routes, visiting speaker protocols.