24-03 Multi-Agency Screening Hub (MASH)
Perth and Kinross Council · 1 December 2025
Back to Audit and Risk Committee — 1 December 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Final Report 24-03 Multi-Agency Screening Hub (MASH). V4 Internal Audit Report Perth and Kinross Council 24-03 Multi-Agency Screening Hub (MASH) October 2025 Final Report (Report No. 25/333) Legal and Governance Corporate and Democratic Services Perth & Kinross Council Council Offices 2 High Street Perth PH1 5PH
Page 2
Final Report 24-03 Multi-Agency Screening Hub (MASH). V4 24-03 Multi-Agency Screening Hub (MASH) Contents by Section 1. Introduction 2. Executive Summary 3. Audit Background Information 4. Scope and Limitations 5. Assessment of the Control Environment 6. Summary of Findings 7. Conclusions 8. Acknowledgement 9. Action Implementation & Follow Up 10. Management Action Plan 11. Authorisation 12. Distribution 13. Assessment Definitions
Page 3
Final Report 24-03 Multi-Agency Screening Hub (MASH). V4 1. Introduction 1.1 The audit of Multi-Agency Screening Hub (MASH) was undertaken as part of the Internal Audit Plan for 2024-25, which was approved by the Audit & Risk Committee on the 24th of June 2024. The period under review for the purposes of the audit exercise was financial years 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25. 1.2 The indicative scope for the audit was to review the effectiveness of the arrangements in place. 1.3 This audit is linked to the Strategic Risk Register SR-01 “We fail to protect children and vulnerable adults from harm”, which was reported as Priority 1, Very High on the 17th of June 2025. 2. Executive Summary 2.1 The audit has found that reasonable assurance can be placed on the Council’s internal controls in relation to the arrangements in place to support the Multi- Agency Screening Hub (MASH). 2.2 There are seven actions arising from the findings in Section 6. An action plan is included at Section 10. Once these actions are completed, Internal Audit should be able to place substantial assurance on the arrangements in place. 3. Audit Background Information 3.1 Children (Scotland) Act 1995, Section 22 states that “A local authority shall safeguard and promote the welfare of children in their area who are in need; and so far as is consistent with that duty, promote the upbringing of such children by their families, by providing a range and level of services appropriate to the children’s needs.” 3.2 Getting It Right For Every Child (GIRFEC) is Scotland’s national approach to promoting, supporting, and safeguarding the wellbeing of all children and young people. It provides a consistent framework, shared language and common understanding of wellbeing. GIRFEC puts the child or young person at the heart and helps children and young people get the right support from the right people at the right time. 3.3 Children and young people’s needs and emerging risks require to be considered along the continuum of their lifespan. Risk is a dynamic concept that can be multi-dimensional in character. Risks may be reduced by parents or carers or through early identification, intervention and support from universal services. At times, a number of services or agencies may need to respond together as part of a co-ordinated intervention.
Page 4
Final Report 24-03 Multi-Agency Screening Hub (MASH). V4 3.4 The Multi-Agency Screening Hub (MASH) is a Social Work and Third Sector Support Forum, which exists in a form of weekly meetings hosted by Children and Families Social Work and attended by a range of agencies and services who can offer support and advice to families at an early or earlier stage. 3.5 Currently, families in need of some additional support at a lower level require to be referred into MASH through the Child Protection Duty Team (CPDT) in Children and Families Services. 4. Scope and Limitations 4.1 The Audit has reviewed the effectiveness of the MASH in providing allocation of support to babies, children, young people and their families, and the adequacy of its arrangements in place. 4.2 To arrive at an opinion, the review included interviews with key officers, document reviews and analysis of the meetings recordings and of relevant performance indicators. 4.3 There were no limitations identified that would impact the Audit. However, we were not able to comment on the effectiveness of the arrangements of the partners’ agencies. 4.4 The details of the control objectives reviewed and Internal Audit’s assessment of their strength of control in each area are contained within Section 5 of this report. 5. Assessment of the Control Environment 5.1 The table below contains a summary of the findings against each control objective and Internal Audit’s assessment of the adequacy and effectiveness of the controls in place to meet each of the objectives agreed for this audit. Further details, including any improvement actions, are set out in the Management Action Plan. No. Control Objective Action Rating Control Objective Assessment 5 4 3 2 1 1 To ensure the adequacy of the arrangements in place to support the effective work of the Multi-Agency Screening Hub. 1 1 5 Reasonable assurance 5.2 The auditor has assessed that reasonable assurance can be placed on controls overall in relation to the Multi-Agency Screening Hub (MASH) from the audit. Meaning: “There is a generally sound system of governance, risk management and control in place. Some issues, non-compliance or scope for improvement
Page 5
Final Report 24-03 Multi-Agency Screening Hub (MASH). V4 were identified which may put at risk the achievement of objectives in the area audited”. 5.3 A summary of the key findings and actions are provided in section 6, please note however, the following areas of good practice which have been highlighted during the audit: 5.4 MASH has proven to be very effective in providing timely and efficient allocation of support to babies, children, young people and their families. The meetings are held frequently, typically weekly, and proceed even when a small number of cases, such as two, are on the agenda, reflecting a strong commitment to the responsiveness. Initial referral screening is done by a qualified Social Worker in the CPDT. Over the course of a year, a substantial number of children are discussed (235 on average), with all cases allocated to the most appropriate agencies to ensure timely and targeted support. 5.5 The Service has promptly recognised a shortage of the staff resource and took proactive measures to address it. The targeted recruitment of two MASH employees allowed the Service to avoid disruption to the workflows and to ensure consistent service quality. 5.6 The process actively contributes to improved Child Protection outcomes through early intervention. By addressing concerns at such early stage, case risks are effectively mitigated, preventing their escalation into more serious cases and avoiding the need for statutory Social Work intervention. MASH also allows the allocation of cases that would otherwise be declined by the CPDT, preventing avoidable harm and encouraging development of more sustainable outcomes for the families and communities. It is illustrative that, although the number of Child Concern Reports is increasing every year (from 6234 in 2020-21 to 8454 in 2024-25), it does not result in a subsequent increase in the later stages of child protection interventions (Inter-Agency Referral Discussions, Child Protection Planning Meetings, Joint Investigative Interviews, Child Protection Orders etc). In fact, it appears to be the opposite - the numbers for those later intervention stages, as well as for the children being placed on the Child Protection Register (from 91 in 2021-22 to 66 in 2024-25), are decreasing every year (as could be seen in the table below):
Page 6
Final Report 24-03 Multi-Agency Screening Hub (MASH). V4 5.7 All MASH activities and decisions are aligned with key national principles and strategic initiatives, such as GIRFEC principles, Whole Family Wellbeing programme and The Promise initiative, as well as with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. This ensures that the support allocated through the MASH remains relevant and contributory to broader governmental objectives. 5.8 All the MASH agencies possess adequate competencies. They are well- established organisations with years of effective collaboration with PKC. These long-standing relationships provide operational stability and reliability. Additionally, all of the partners have access to Child Protection Committee (CPC) trainings. This access promotes shared knowledge and supports continuous professional development. For partners with whom contractual agreements are in place, these documents also define expectations towards partners’ competencies. 5.9 Documentation practices are upheld to support accountability, transparency, traceability and informed decision-making. The records exist not only in the form of the MASH Register, but also as meeting recordings, meeting transcripts and MOSAIC case notes. 5.10 There is a range of data protection documents in place, which provide clarity and promote accountability. A formal Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was developed in April 2025 to clearly define expectations and responsibilities in data handling. The MOU is comprehensive and ensures compliance with data protection laws. Data Protection framework is also outlined in Contracts/ Service Level Agreements (SLAs). 5.11 A Privacy Notice has been developed and formally published to ensure full transparency regarding the collection, use and safeguarding of personal information. The Notice clearly outlines the commitments to data protection and the lawful basis for processing information. Making the document accessible publicly helps to build trust with stakeholders and reinforces compliance with data protection laws, as well as with best practices. 5.12 Adherence to information minimisation principles ensures that only relevant and necessary data is shared. Secure communication channels are utilised at all times. Partner agencies are not granted direct access to the PKC’s case management system (MOSAIC). Personal passwords are never disclosed, maintaining the high standards of confidentiality and data security. 5.13 Accountability is reinforced by CPDT remaining involved for some period after allocation and by talking to the agencies prior to case closure to confirm case status, where appropriate. It is also supported by informing the referrers of allocation outcomes to facilitate their continuous engagement in the process. Importantly, there is also an option to escalate the cases back to the CPDT. 5.14 Although MASH is a relatively new project, the service has already initiated a review of its effectiveness, receiving positive feedback from the partners and confirmation of its significant strengths through the Desktop Audit. Those
Page 7
Final Report 24-03 Multi-Agency Screening Hub (MASH). V4 reviews resulted in recognition and implementation of needed improvements (e.g., establishment of the Memorandum of Understanding, inclusion of a distinct consent for MASH discussion within referral forms, procedural updates to the outcomes distribution process etc), facilitating adaptive learning and continuous improvement. 5.15 The MASH strengthens inter-agency relationships and improves inter-agency communication. It also provides a platform for cooperation and effective collaboration for the agencies, inspiring their joint projects and avoiding duplication of efforts. 6. Summary of Findings 6.1 In addition to the good practice highlighted above, below is a summary of key findings and actions, which are reflected in the Management Action Plan, detailed in section 10. 6.2 There are some discrepancies between the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and the actual practice: “No information is shared by email prior to the MASH other than the names of the children/young people being discussed”. – This statement appears to be inaccurate as with the list of children’s and young people’s names, the partners also receive some other personal data, which includes their dates of birth, addresses, school’s details and their parents’ names, as well as the link to the main MASH data file (MASHUP Register). Such practice appears to breach the terms of the MOU, so it would be recommended to re-align the document with the practice by reviewing what data is getting shared prior to the MASH and, if needed, to amend the Memorandum accordingly. It is also advisable to strengthen the Register’s security by applying password protection and thereby preventing unauthorised data damage or alteration. - One of the agencies was not removed from the correspondence list and continued to receive sensitive information after their exit of the MASH group. It is acknowledged and appreciated that CPDT Team Leader has requested their removal, however it is recommended to always ensure that it is actioned as otherwise this would lead to unauthorised disclosure, breach of confidentiality obligations and non-compliance with data protection laws. The consequences might also include potential legal or regulatory actions. - It was observed that, on one occasion, a separate discussion between the two members was captured at the end of the meeting recording due to the belief that the recording had already stopped. It would be recommended to consistently verify that the recording has concluded before proceeding to any separate discussion as otherwise this could result in violation of confidentiality policies and of data protection regulations.
Page 8
Final Report 24-03 Multi-Agency Screening Hub (MASH). V4 [Action Point 1] 6.3 Data recording is not always accurate, comprehensive and consistent: - Some key data is missing or inaccurate (gaps/ blank cells; data recorded or copied incorrectly). - Data extracted from MOSAIC does not appear to be checked for common sense before being transferred onto the Register/MASHUP List and distributed to the partners, resulting in errors in key information and misleading the agencies. - Data for the Register does not appear to be cross-checked with data on the Referral forms, resulting in discrepancies between the two of them. - Some outcomes are missing or inaccurate (blank cells; if multiple outcomes, not all allocations are always recorded; the background recorded instead of the allocation; some discrepancies between the document and the outcomes expressed at the meeting). This could lead to misallocation of the cases, to partners receiving misleading information, and to cases delays and escalations. There is also a risk of a reputational damage and of partners’ disengagement. [Action Point 2] 6.4 Please note that there are five other minor actions for the improvement in the control environment which are included within the management action plan. [Action Points 3-7] 7. Conclusion 7.1 The Internal Audit review is able to place reasonable assurance on the overall control environment for the Multi-Agency Screening Hub (MASH). The agreed actions, once implemented, should enable Internal Audit to place substantial assurance on these. 8. Acknowledgements 8.1 Internal Audit would like to thank all officers who were involved in this audit, particularly: Sharon Cooper, Service Manager - Children’s Services
Page 9
Final Report 24-03 Multi-Agency Screening Hub (MASH). V4 Sheila Wilson, Improvement Officer - Children’s Services Debbie Reilly-Davidson, Team Leader - Child Protection Duty Team. 9. Action Implementation & Follow up 9.1 Responsibility for the maintenance of adequate and effective controls rests with management. Where the audit has identified areas for management action, these are identified in the Management Action Plan. Where a decision is taken by management not to act in response to finding from this review, it is the responsibility of management to assess and accept the risk arising from non- implementation. 9.2 Achievement of the agreed actions is monitored through Internal Audit’s ‘follow up’ arrangements.
Page 10
Final Report 24-03 Multi-Agency Screening Hub (MASH). V4 10. Management Action Plan Action Point Para. No Finding Risk Rating Agreed Action & Evidence Action Owner Target Completio n Date 1 6.2 There are some discrepancies between the Memorandum of Understanding and the actual practice: - “No information is shared by email prior to the MASH other than the names of the children/young people being discussed”. – This statement appears to be inaccurate as with the list of children’s and young people’s names, the partners also receive some other personal data, which includes their dates of birth, addresses, school’s details and their parents’ names, as well as the link to the main MASH data file (“MASHUP Register”). Such practice appears to breach the terms of the MOU, so it would be recommended to re-align the 3 Agreed action:MOU will be updated (as the list of children, as well as their personal data on the MASH spreadsheet, is available for participants). Agreed evidence: • Updated MOU. • Updated format of invites to planned partners. S Wilson, Improvement Officer December 2025
Page 11
Final Report 24-03 Multi-Agency Screening Hub (MASH). V4 document with the practice by reviewing what data is getting shared prior to the MASH and, if needed, to amend the Memorandum accordingly. It is also advisable to strengthen the Register’s security by applying password protection and thereby preventing unauthorised data damage or alteration. - One of the agencies was not removed from the correspondence list and continued to receive sensitive information after their exit of the MASH group. It is acknowledged and appreciated that CPDT Team Leader has requested their removal, however it is recommended to always ensure that it gets actioned as otherwise this would lead to unauthorised disclosure, breach of confidentiality obligations and non- compliance with data protection laws. Agreed action:A review process will be put in place to ensure this does not happen again. Partners will be reminded to advise the MASH if they are removing themselves from MASH and they will be deleted from MASH systems and processes. Agreed evidence: • An up-to-date list of MASH planned partners. • A reminder email sent to the partners. Exit D Reilly- Davidson,CPDT Team Leader November 2025
Page 12
Final Report 24-03 Multi-Agency Screening Hub (MASH). V4 - It was observed, on one occasion, that a separate discussion between the two members was captured at the end of the meeting recording due to the belief that the recording had already stopped. It would be recommended to consistently verify that the recording has concluded before proceeding to any separate discussion as otherwise this could result in violation of confidentiality policies and of data protection regulations. process described in MASH Guidance. Agreed action: Meeting will consistently terminate after MASH discussions have taken place. Any separate discussion necessary between planned partners will take place as a separate Teams meeting and therefore will not be recorded. A designated person will be responsible for ensuring that the Teams meeting is ended immediately after the formal discussion concludes. Agreed evidence: A designation of a responsible person. No further recordings of conversations not related to MASH discussions. D Reilly-Davidson, CPDT Team Leader November 2025 2 6.3 Data recording is not always accurate, comprehensive and consistent: - Some key data is missing or inaccurate (gaps/ blank cells; data recorded or copied incorrectly). 2 Agreed action: • Admin Business Manager will be made aware of admin errors. • MASH workers will be responsible for accurate recording of information. • Mosaic process may eliminate the need for a MASH spreadsheet J Cooper, Senior Business Officer D Reilly-Davidson, CPDT Team Leader November 2025
Page 13
Final Report 24-03 Multi-Agency Screening Hub (MASH). V4 - Data extracted from MOSAIC does not appear to be checked for common sense before being transferred onto the Register/MASHUP List and distributed to the partners, resulting in errors in key information and misleading the agencies. - Data for the Register does not appear to be cross- checked with data on the Referral forms, resulting in discrepancies between the two of them. - Some outcomes are missing or inaccurate (blank cells; if multiple, not all allocations are always recorded; the background recorded instead of the allocation; some discrepancies between the document and the which will reduce the need for manual input. Agreed evidence: • Data recording roles and responsibilities outlined in MASH procedure or MASH Guidance. • Periodical verification of the accurateness of case notes and MASH spreadsheet entries.
Page 14
Final Report 24-03 Multi-Agency Screening Hub (MASH). V4 outcomes expressed at the meeting). 3 6.4 In order to ensure adequate competencies of any future MASH partners, it would be advantageous to either formulate a MASH entry criteria or to create an entry QA Checklist, as well as to consider creating an Induction programme. 1 Agreed action:MASH Guidance will be created for partners and for induction purposes. This will include the entry criteria for partners to join the MASH group. Agreed evidence: Availability of MASH Guidance. D Reilly-Davidson, CPDT Team Leader G Irons, MASH Social Worker S Wilson, Improvement Officer March 2026 4 6.4 To support improved shared understanding of the MASH process, it would be beneficial to formally document the MASH procedure and to define in it a case allocation criteria. 1 Agreed action:MASH Guidance will be created for partners and for induction purposes. This will include the referral criteria for MASH and the case allocation criteria. Agreed evidence: Availability of MASH Guidance. D Reilly-Davidson, CPDT Team Leader G Irons, MASH Social Worker S Wilson, Improvement Officer March 2026 5 6.4 In order to improve decision- making and to increase transparency, it would be advisable to include in the Register the referrers, reasons for the referrals and to add a check column for the referrer’s awareness of the outcomes 1 Agreed action:This will be captured by the new system when the process moves to Mosaic. Agreed evidence: Relevant Mosaic entries. D Reilly-Davidson, CPDT Team Leader L Willoughby, Mosaic System Project Officer March 2026
Page 15
Final Report 24-03 Multi-Agency Screening Hub (MASH). V4 (“referrer informed of outcomes”), as well as the check columns for parental consent and for their awareness of the outcomes (“parents informed of outcomes”). 6 6.4 To avoid misinterpretation of the group’s role, it would be advisable to consider changing its title from Multi-Agency Screening Hub to Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (or to another suitable name). For coherence and accuracy, it would also be advisable to replace acronym “MASHUP” with acronym “MASH” in all relevant documents and in all future correspondence (“MASHUP List”, “MASHUP Register”, “MASHUP Group” etc). 1 Agreed action: • Any documentation, paperwork etc will be amended and partners/workers will be reminded that the process is MASH not MASHUP. • A change of name from “Screening” to “Safeguarding” will not be progressed though, as MASH is now an established name and because ‘Safeguarding’ would be misleading. However, it will be highlighted within MASH guidance that it is not only a screening hub, but also an allocation system. Agreed evidence: • MASH Guidance. D Reilly-Davidson, CPDT Team Leader G Irons, MASH Social Worker K Taylor, MASH Senior Social Care Officer From November 2025
Page 16
Final Report 24-03 Multi-Agency Screening Hub (MASH). V4 • Re-named MASH documentation. 7 6.4 To prevent inefficient resource use and case escalations, it might be constructive to consider using the potential for increased admin support (especially with the outcomes processing) and increasing the number of MASH partners (to avoid their waiting lists’ delays). 1 • Agreed action:Non- urgent referral form being reviewed with planned partners to determine if this can be accepted as an initial referral to avoid delays. • Admin support is centralised, however consideration of financial support re Modern Apprentice may be of benefit. Agreed evidence: • Proves of quicker allocation if MASH referral is accepted. • Appointment of a Modern Apprentice. D Reilly-Davidson, CPDT Team Leader S Wilson, Improvement Officer March 2026
Page 17
Final Report 24-03 Multi-Agency Screening Hub (MASH). V4 10. Authorisation 10.1 The auditor for this assignment was K Tarnowska. The supervising auditor was D Arachchilage. This report is authorised for issue: ... 11. Distribution 11.1 This report has been distributed to: T Glen, Chief Executive J Pepper, Chief Officer - PK HSCP A Singh, Strategic Lead - Children, Families and Justice/ CSWO S Cooper, Service Manager - Children’s Services S Wilson, Improvement Officer - Children’s Services D Reilly-Davidson, Team Leader - Child Protection Duty Team L Simpson, Strategic Lead - Legal & Governance Committee Services External Audit.
Page 18
Final Report 24-03 Multi-Agency Screening Hub (MASH). V4 12. Assessment Definitions 12.1 The following table contains the definitions of the control objective assessment. Control Objective Assessment Level of assurance Definition Substantial Assurance A sound system of governance, risk management and control exist, with internal controls operating effectively and being consistently applied to support the achievement of objectives in the area audited. Reasonable Assurance There is a generally sound system of governance, risk management and control in place. Some issues, non- compliance or scope for improvement were identified which may put at risk the achievement of objectives in the area audited. Limited Assurance Significant gaps, weaknesses or non-compliance were identified. Improvement is required to the system of governance, risk management and control to effectively manage risks to the achievement of objectives in the area audited. No Assurance Immediate action is required to address fundamental gaps, weaknesses or non-compliance identified. The system of governance, risk management and control is inadequate to effectively manage risks to the achievement of objectives in the area audited. 12.2 The following table contains the definitions applied by Internal Audit in rating audit findings/actions. Risk Rating for Individual Findings Rating Rating description Definition 5 Critical Significant observations/ major concerns which require immediate action. Management will need to add these to the appropriate Service risk register. Issue represents a control weakness which could cause, or is causing, severe disruption of the process or severe adverse effect on the ability to achieve process objectives 4 High Significant observations regarding the absence / failure of key controls requiring urgent action. Management should consider adding these to the appropriate Service/ divisional risk register.
Page 19
Final Report 24-03 Multi-Agency Screening Hub (MASH). V4 Issue represents a control weakness which could have, or is having, major adverse effect on the ability to achieve process objectives 3 Medium Observations regarding the effectiveness of key controls requiring reasonably urgent action. Management should consider these when updating any divisional / team risk registers. Issue represents a control weakness which could have, or is having, significant adverse effect on the ability to achieve process objectives 2 Low Minor observations regarding the adequacy of controls which require action to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, or economy of operations or which otherwise require to be brought to the attention of Senior Management. Issue represents a minor control weakness with minimal but reportable impact on the ability to achieve process objectives 1 Trivial / Minor Very minor observations which will be raised during the audit and may not be included within the final report. Issue represents a very minor control weakness with negligible impact on the ability to achieve process objectives. The issue will be raised during the audit and may not be included within the final report.