The information-sharing duty is live. The handoff still has to work

01 / Establish what has changed locally

Establish what has changed locally

The designated safeguarding lead should bring the current guidance into a discussion with the school’s senior leadership and data protection lead. Identify which local partnership agreements apply, who can clarify their operation and where the school’s procedures need updating. A national commencement date does not automatically tell staff which local contact is responsible for a particular request.

Keep the scope precise. The statutory guidance covers different organisations and roles, and the decision must fit the actual safeguarding purpose. Staff should know how to seek advice without delaying urgent protection. A short briefing can explain what has changed, which existing routes remain in place and where uncertainty should be escalated. Avoid asking every teacher to become a legal interpreter. The system should give frontline staff a clear route to a person able to make and record the relevant judgement.

02 / Audit the complete request pathway

Audit the complete request pathway

Review a small sample of recent information requests in the school’s secure system. Include a request sent by the school, one received from a partner and one that required clarification. Check the purpose, recipient, information supplied, decision record and subsequent action. Look for evidence that the request reached the responsible person rather than assume that a sent message proves receipt.

Where a handoff failed, establish why. Was the contact out of date? Did the request lack context? Was responsibility unclear during absence or a staff change? The answer determines the repair. Updating an agreement will not fix an inbox nobody monitors, and staff training will not fix an ambiguous escalation route. This review should remain proportionate and confidential. Its purpose is to improve the next safeguarding decision, not to construct a public account of individual families or reward the largest volume of sharing.

03 / Share the relevant concern clearly

Share the relevant concern clearly

A useful request explains the safeguarding purpose, the concern and what information is needed. It should separate direct observation, information reported by others and professional interpretation. That distinction helps the receiving organisation assess the evidence without turning an inference into an established fact. Accuracy also includes dates and whether information is current.

The school needs a usable way to identify the correct recipient and send information securely. Staff should not bypass the agreed route because it is inconvenient, but leaders must also notice if that route is too slow or difficult for urgent work. Resolve those weaknesses with the relevant partners. The data protection and safeguarding perspectives should work together: the question is how to support necessary, proportionate sharing while protecting information from unnecessary exposure, rather than use either discipline as a reason to avoid the other.

04 / Record the decision, not only the attachment

Record the decision, not only the attachment

A record should make the school’s judgement understandable later. What was the purpose? What was shared or withheld, with whom and why? What advice was obtained? What action followed? The level of detail should fit the circumstances, and the school should follow the statutory guidance and its established safeguarding recording arrangements. A large file containing unexplained attachments can be less useful than a concise chronology with clear decisions.

Equally, a template must not replace professional judgement. If the concern changes, the earlier decision may need revisiting. If a partner asks for clarification, someone must own the response. If information indicates an immediate risk, the established urgent safeguarding routes apply. Leaders should test how the process works when the DSL is unavailable, the request arrives near the end of the day or the family moves between areas. Ordinary resilience matters most when circumstances are least convenient.

05 / Help partners resolve the practical gaps

Help partners resolve the practical gaps

The new templates offer a starting point for strategic and operational arrangements; they are not proof that a local agreement is complete or effective. A school can contribute useful questions to partnership discussions. Which contacts are monitored? How are urgent requests identified? How does the sender know the information reached the right professional? What happens when an organisation cannot provide the requested material?1

Escalation should be clear enough to use without a prolonged search. Agree how recurring failures are raised and reviewed, while distinguishing a disagreement about a particular judgement from a broken process. Schools should not compensate indefinitely for unclear multi-agency arrangements by repeatedly resending the same material. That creates work and can increase exposure without improving protection. A purposeful partnership discussion asks where a handoff fails and what each organisation will change to make the route reliable.

Include new and temporary staff in the briefing appropriate to their role. They may be the first adult to notice a concern but the least familiar with the school’s routes. Explain where to take the concern and what to do if the usual contact is unavailable. Check understanding through a short practical conversation, rather than infer it from attendance at training. Reliable information sharing begins before a formal request is made, when a concern first reaches someone able to assess it.

06 / Put assurance around the process

Put assurance around the process

Governors need assurance that guidance has been reviewed, procedures updated where necessary and staff know the route for concerns. They do not need the personal information underlying every safeguarding decision. A short report can describe the review, the practical gaps identified and how leaders will check the repairs. Keep sensitive casework within the appropriate professional arrangements.

Over the next fortnight, the DSL and data protection lead can agree one focused pathway test and update the staff briefing. Confirm cover arrangements and the local escalation contact. Return to the leadership team with the actions completed and those requiring partnership resolution. The duty is now live, but the practical measure of success is more demanding than an updated policy date. It is whether relevant information reaches the professional who needs it, in time to influence a decision, with responsibility for follow-through remaining visible.

Leadership questions

Questions that turn the development into a governing conversation.

What we are monitoring next

Publication is the beginning of the watch.

• Local implementation of the new duty and clarification of operational agreements and escalation routes.

Continue the evidence trail

How this develops our earlier coverage

• September: notification needs to become support ↗