← For Police / Statutory Guidance
Working Together to Safeguard Children 2026

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

The merged Family Help model changes who you liaise with on a case. The seven golden rules of information sharing are reaffirmed. CCE, county lines, and Prevent referral pathways are all touched. A briefing for serving officers on what has changed and what it means for how you work with schools.

In force 18 March 2026 4 sections Last reviewed: August 2026
⚖️ College of Policing APP alignment: This guidance reflects the College of Policing's Authorised Professional Practice on information management and safeguarding. Apply the National Decision Model with the Code of Ethics at its centre when making information-sharing decisions.
1
Family Help: who you liaise with now
2
GDPR and the seven golden rules: what changed and what didn't
3
CCE, county lines, and Prevent: how WT2026 touches each
4
Identifying a family's current Family Help lead: a practical guide
1 Family Help: Who You Liaise With Now

Working Together 2026 merges two previously distinct support offers — targeted early help and Section 17 children in need support — into a single Family Help pathway. For police, the practical effect is that the contact landscape for a family below the child protection threshold has changed.

What existed before

Under the 2023 framework, a family with identified needs but not meeting the Section 47 threshold could be receiving support from multiple, separate services: an early help worker (often school or voluntary sector-led), a children's social care assessment team worker, and potentially a Family Support worker or Family Group Conference co-ordinator, each under different referral routes and with different recording systems. Police officers trying to understand who held current responsibility for a family's welfare sometimes had to work through several contacts to find out.

What has changed

Under Working Together 2026, the expectation is that a family receiving support below the child protection threshold has a single named lead practitioner co-ordinating their plan through a multi-disciplinary Family Help team. That practitioner may be from any participating agency — a children's social care worker, an early help worker, a school pastoral lead, a family support worker from a voluntary organisation — but there should be one person who owns the overall co-ordination and can give you a current picture of what is in place.

For police, the operational implication: When you need to know the current support picture for a family, your first call should be to establish whether there is an active Family Help plan. The MASH duty line is the right starting point if you do not already have a relationship with the team. Ask specifically: "Is there a current Family Help plan or a named lead practitioner for this family?" That question is now meaningful in a way it was not under the previous framework.

The child protection threshold is unchanged

Family Help is for families whose needs exceed what universal services can meet, but who fall below the Section 47 child protection threshold. Where there are reasonable grounds to suspect a child is suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm, the response remains a Section 47 enquiry and a MASH referral. Working Together 2026 does not move or blur that threshold. If you have a child protection concern, refer to MASH. If you have a welfare concern about a family who may need support, ask about Family Help.

Last reviewed: August 2026 · Sources: Working Together to Safeguard Children 2026 (Ch. 2–3) · Children Act 1989, s.17, s.47
2 GDPR and the Seven Golden Rules: What Changed and What Didn't
Nothing has changed about the legal basis for information sharing. UK GDPR, the Data Protection Act 2018, and the lawful bases for law enforcement processing are unchanged. What WT2026 does is restate and reinforce how those legal bases apply in the multi-agency safeguarding context, and make clear what practitioners should — and should not — be citing as a reason not to share.

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

WT2026 is explicit: information sharing in the interests of a child's welfare can proceed without consent where consent would put the child at greater risk or undermine a safeguarding investigation. "We can't share because of GDPR" is not an acceptable position where a child's welfare is at stake. If a DSL tells you this, they are wrong, and this guidance — directly citing WT2026 Chapter 1 — provides the authority to push back politely and firmly.

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.

Last reviewed: August 2026 · Sources: Working Together to Safeguard Children 2026 (Ch. 1) · UK GDPR Art.6(1)(d)(e) · DPA 2018 Sch.1 Part 2 para.18 · Information Commissioner's Office guidance on data sharing in safeguarding
3 CCE, County Lines, and Prevent: How WT2026 Touches Each

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.

Practical point for CCE officers: When a child is on the cusp of a county lines referral but you are not yet at the MASH threshold, ask whether there is an active Family Help plan. The lead practitioner may have information that, combined with yours, crosses the threshold to a Section 47 enquiry — making the referral appropriate and the intelligence case stronger. The MASH strategy discussion is the right venue for pooling that picture.

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.

Statutory tag: WT2026 Ch.1 PCSCA 2022 s.12-18 Children Act 1989 s.47

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.

Last reviewed: August 2026 · Sources: Working Together to Safeguard Children 2026 · Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (Serious Violence Duty) · Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015
4 Identifying a Family's Current Family Help Lead: A Practical Guide

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.

What to ask the MASH duty team:
"I'm enquiring about [child/family]. Can you tell me whether this family is currently open to any service, whether there is an active Family Help plan, and if so, who the named lead practitioner is?" That specific question will get you a useful answer faster than a general welfare query.

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.

Important: The DSL is a safeguarding professional with their own legal obligations, not a police intelligence asset. Share information reciprocally and explain what you can and cannot tell them. A DSL who understands why you cannot share certain operational details will be more forthcoming than one who feels they are being asked to give and receive nothing in return. This is what the WT2026 information-sharing framework is designed to support — mutual, GDPR-compliant, child-centred sharing.

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.

Last reviewed: August 2026 · Sources: Working Together to Safeguard Children 2026 (Ch. 1, Ch. 3) · UK GDPR Art.6 · DPA 2018 · College of Policing APP Information Management

📚 Statutory References

Related Resources

WT2026 Complete Guide → Information Sharing Tool → Child Criminal Exploitation → Prevent & Channel → ← All Police Resources
← Back to
For Police: All Resources
Hub Page
Working Together 2026: Complete Guide