Working Together 2026: What Changes for Police-School Information Sharing

The seven golden rules, restated

Working Together 2026 restates the seven golden rules of information sharing (originally from the 2018 guidance, now updated to reflect UK GDPR). For police working with schools, these are the principles that govern every information exchange:

• Rule 1: GDPR and the DPA 2018 are not barriers to sharing information for safeguarding purposes. They set the framework for lawful sharing.
• Rule 2: Be open and honest with the individual about why you need information and how it will be used, unless doing so would put the child or investigation at risk.
• Rule 3: Seek consent where appropriate, but do not let its absence prevent you from sharing where there is a legitimate safeguarding purpose.
• Rule 4: Consider whether the information must be shared — is the purpose proportionate to the risk and the privacy intrusion?
• Rule 5: Only share information relevant and necessary to the purpose — do not share more than you need to.
• Rule 6: Keep a record of your decision and your reasoning, whether you share or decide not to share.
• Rule 7: Keep the information you share secure.

The key message for police

Lawful basis for police-to-school sharing

For police disclosures to schools, the lawful basis will typically be UK GDPR Article 6(1)(e) (task carried out in the public interest) combined with DPA 2018 Schedule 1, Part 2, paragraph 18 — the law enforcement processing provision. Where the disclosure is in the vital interests of a child (immediate risk of significant harm), Article 6(1)(d) may also apply.

For school-to-police sharing (the DSL disclosing to you), the school is relying on the same framework. The Information Sharing Decision Tool on this site walks through the seven golden rules for both sides of the exchange and generates a printable decision record.

What "necessary and proportionate" means in practice

The most common point of friction in police-school information sharing is not legal — it is operational. Officers sometimes share more than they need to (telling a DSL the full details of an ongoing investigation when all they needed to share was "there is a safeguarding concern about this child"), or less than they should (withholding welfare information because they are uncertain about the legal basis). Both create problems. WT2026 is clear: share what is necessary, share it promptly, record your decision, and get on with protecting the child.

Child criminal exploitation and county lines

For officers working county lines or CCE operations, Working Together 2026 reinforces the multi-agency information-sharing expectations that already govern this work — but the Family Help model creates a specific new consideration. Under the previous framework, a young person involved in county lines exploitation might be receiving "early help" from the school and "Section 17 support" from children's social care simultaneously, with limited co-ordination between the two. Under WT2026, that young person should now have a single Family Help lead practitioner who holds the overview.

That is relevant to how you share intelligence. If you have information that a young person is being exploited — but the nature of your intelligence means you cannot share the specifics with the family — the Family Help lead practitioner is a better point of contact than a generic duty line. They can act on welfare information without you needing to disclose operational details, and they are better placed to spot whether something you tell them is consistent with a pattern they have already identified.

Serious Violence Duty and WT2026

The Serious Violence Duty (Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, in force January 2023) requires police, schools, local authorities, health services, and other specified authorities to collaborate on a local serious violence strategy. Working Together 2026 operates alongside this framework — they are not in tension. Where a child is involved in serious violence, the WT2026 multi-agency information-sharing principles govern what you share with schools and Family Help teams, while the Serious Violence Duty provides the statutory basis for the wider strategic partnership through which that sharing is planned.

Prevent and Channel

Prevent referrals and Channel panel processes sit outside the Working Together multi-agency framework in the sense that they have their own statutory basis (Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015). However, the information-sharing principles are the same, and WT2026 is referenced in Prevent guidance when dealing with children who are subject to both a safeguarding concern and a radicalisation concern.

Where a child is subject to a Channel panel discussion and also has an active Family Help plan, the Channel police practitioner and the Family Help lead practitioner should be co-ordinating — ideally through the MASH or the LSCP if the overlap warrants it. The operational risk of these two processes running in parallel without contact is that interventions designed for one purpose can inadvertently undermine the other. Channel is not a safeguarding process, but it sits in the same ecosystem.

For the full police-Prevent guidance, see the Prevent and Channel pillar.

One of the operational frustrations that the Family Help model is designed to address is the question of who currently holds responsibility for a family. Under the old framework, the answer was often unclear — multiple workers, multiple referral histories, no single current owner. Working Together 2026 changes that, but only where the model is fully implemented. In the first year of operation, patchy implementation is realistic, and officers should be prepared to do some groundwork.

Starting point: the MASH

The Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub is still the primary point of contact for any police-initiated enquiry about a child or family. A MASH call or referral will tell you whether the family is currently open to children's social care, whether there is an active Family Help plan, and who the lead practitioner is. This is the fastest route.

If the family is not known to MASH

If the MASH has no current record, the family is either below any current threshold or has not previously come to agency attention. In that case:

• If there are current police welfare concerns, you are in the territory of a new referral rather than a liaison call. Document your concerns and make a MASH referral if the threshold is met.
• If your concern is lower level, contact the school's DSL to understand what the school's current picture is. The DSL may be the most current point of knowledge about this family's circumstances, particularly for families who have not engaged with other services.
• If you know the family has received early help or voluntary support previously but the case was closed, ask the MASH to check whether any early help record exists, as the new Family Help framework should mean more consistent recording of sub-threshold work.

When the school is ahead of you

Schools often hold more current welfare information about a family than any statutory agency, because they see the child every day. When you contact a DSL, they may be able to tell you not just about the child but about recent parental contact, changes in the child's presentation, siblings' behaviour, and whether a Family Help worker has been visiting. This intelligence is valuable. Build the relationship with the DSL before you need it urgently — a call to establish contact and explain your role in the area will pay dividends on the call you make six months later when a child is missing.

Recording the outcome

Whether you share information with or receive information from a school, MASH, or Family Help team, record the outcome — who you spoke to, what was shared or received, and the decision you made about further action. WT2026 is explicit that this applies to decisions not to share as well as decisions to share. The record protects both you and the child.