Information sharing to safeguard children:
from duty to effective practice.

From 30 September 2026, the new information-sharing duty applies in England in relation to safeguarding children and young people.

The statutory guidance aims to support more consistent and timely sharing of information between relevant organisations and practitioners. Its safeguarding value, however, will depend on whether information becomes shared understanding and proportionate action.

The scope matters

This is a children’s safeguarding duty. It should not be presented as a new general information-sharing duty for adult safeguarding, although some of its practice principles have wider relevance.

The duty complements existing safeguarding responsibilities and Working Together to Safeguard Children. It does not remove the need for practitioners to consider relevance, necessity, proportionality, accuracy and the potential effect of sharing information.

Information sharing is more than transmission

Safeguarding reviews frequently identify information that existed within individual services but was not connected, understood or acted upon. Sending a referral or transferring a record does not, by itself, create a shared understanding of risk.

Effective practice requires professionals to consider:

• Is the information relevant to the child’s welfare or safety?
• Is it accurate, current and clearly distinguished from opinion?
• Is sharing necessary and proportionate?
• Does the recipient understand why the information is significant?
• Is information about adults connected to the child being handled lawfully and carefully?
• Has the child’s voice and lived experience been considered?
• Who will bring the information together and decide what happens next?

The quality and meaning of the information matter as much as the act of sharing it.

Consent and transparency are not the same

Data-protection law provides several lawful bases for sharing information. Consent is not always required when information needs to be shared for safeguarding purposes.

Transparency remains important, but it should not be confused with seeking permission in every circumstance. Children and families should normally be helped to understand how and why information is being used. There will also be circumstances in which discussing the proposed sharing beforehand could increase risk, cause delay or undermine safeguarding action.

Practitioners should record what was shared, who received it, why sharing was considered necessary, the relevant legal or organisational basis, whether the child or family was informed, and what action followed. A decision not to share may require equally clear reasoning.

From fragmented information to a shared picture

Education, health, police, children’s social care, adult services, housing and voluntary organisations may each hold a different part of the child’s story.

Implementation should therefore examine more than whether staff have read the guidance. Organisations should consider whether:

1. information crosses organisational and geographical boundaries appropriately;
2. referrals explain the significance of concerns rather than simply reproducing records;
3. repeated incidents and changes are connected over time;
4. the needs of children with SEND or communication differences are fully considered;
5. assumptions and professional bias are actively challenged;
6. responsibility for assessment, coordination and response is clear; and
7. audit examines outcomes for children, rather than information-sharing activity alone.

How LOOK can support effective practice

The LOOK Safeguarding Framework® supports the professional reasoning around information sharing:

• Living Circumstances helps practitioners understand the context that gives individual pieces of information meaning.
• Obstacles and Barriers explores what may prevent disclosure, engagement, access or understanding.
• Ongoing Risks and Escalation connects concerns, changes and repeated incidents across time and services.
• Keeping the Person in View ensures that the child’s voice, identity, relationships and lived experience remain central.

LOOK does not replace statutory guidance, data-protection advice, organisational procedures or professional judgement.

The public interactive LOOK tool is a reflective learning resource. Identifiable, personal or clinical information must not be entered into it, and information entered into the public tool is not stored.

Questions for organisations

• Do staff understand who the new duty applies to?
• Can practitioners distinguish consent from transparency?
• Do referrals communicate significance, urgency and cumulative risk?
• Can information be connected across service boundaries without unsafe delay?
• Does supervision support practitioners when they are uncertain about sharing?
• Are children and families helped to understand how their information is used?
• Can assurance demonstrate that information sharing resulted in better understanding and action?

The new duty creates an important legal expectation. Its success will depend on whether organisations turn information into timely understanding, shared responsibility and effective safeguarding action.

Sources

• Department for Education: Information sharing duty statutory guidance
• Department for Education: Information sharing to safeguard children and young people

Explore safeguarding training and LOOK implementation support ↗