Faith-based organizations (FBOs) play an influential role in societies worldwide, providing vital support at a local and sometimes international level. Defined by Clarke and Jennings (2008) as “any organization that derives inspiration and guidance for its activities from the teaching and principles of the faith or from a particular interpretation or school of thought within the faith” (p. 6), FBOs include places of worship, faith-based charities, schools, and community networks, to name but a few (Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, 2015). These organizations often provide vital social, educational, and humanitarian services, particularly in and for communities where provision may be limited (Tomalin, 2012), and they often work with children, young people, and vulnerable adults and should therefore have in place measures to prevent harm and respond to safeguarding concerns. While the practicalities and implementation of safeguarding measures differ country to country, in the United Kingdom FBOs usually have a designated safeguard lead whose role includes consulting with SSs (Trend, 2025).

United Kingdom SSs are public services that local authorities and government bodies legally must provide to prevent harm, protect those at risk, and work in partnership with families and voluntary organizations to keep people safe. These include child protection and safeguarding services delivered by Children’s Services, adult social care, the National Health Service (NHS), the police, and education authorities (HM Government, 2023), who should in the case of safeguarding issues work together through multiagency collaboration (Ball et al., 2024).

Effective safeguarding relies on multiagency collaboration to challenge abuse and achieve positive outcomes (Carter et al., 2007; HM Government, 2023; Laming, 2003; Munro, 2011; Romeo, 2015). Morrison (2000) discussed how the U.K. government formulated policy guidelines establishing best practice frameworks for collaborative efforts with the goal of safeguarding vulnerable individuals within the community, for example, Every Child Matters, Working Together to Safeguard Children guidance and The Care Act statutory guidance to increase information sharing and joint decision making between agencies (Department for Education & Skills, 2003; HM Government, 2014, 2023). While the legislation is clear, the implementation of multiagency working, where differing organisations work together collaboratively to meet an individual's or a group's needs, has been more complex. This is partly due to the adoption of differing models of governance and structures in different areas (Ball et al., 2024; McManus & Boulton, 2020). Within England, the most prominent model is the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH; Home Office, 2014). MASH hubs bring together key statutory safeguarding partners to ensure the sharing of information between agencies occurs in a timely manner, assessment of concerns, and putting in place of interventions through a joined-up response (Crockett et al., 2013).

Shorrock et al. (2020) conducted interviews with practitioners from one MASH hub in the north of England; while they found evidence of good practice and improved information sharing, there were still areas for development. For example, while services were all in one space, internal hierarchical structures within each service led to feelings of power imbalance between services. Furthermore, while information sharing had improved, a challenge remained as to the usefulness of the information shared and factors such as service protocols, sharing agreements, and consent, which were cited as barriers. These are not new findings. They echo those found by Atkinson et al. (2005), who examined multiagency working in U.K. local education authorities. Critically, Atkinson et al. also raised communication as a challenge and identified how working at differing levels impacted, for example, those in strategic roles versus those in operational levels. Multiagency collaboration can become even more difficult when the interagency relationships transcend the statutory and voluntary sector divide, especially when considering specific organizations such as FBOs.

Although the Working Together to Safeguard Children (HM Government, 2023) guidance emphasizes the need for all organizations to work in partnership with statutory agencies to protect children from harm, it has only two paragraphs addressing safeguarding within a faith context. Indeed, the attention given to faith settings has reduced incrementally in each revision since 2010. This means that limited guidance and literature on the interaction between FBOs and statutory services (SSs) for multiagency working exists. O’Neill et al. (2010) conclude that there is “a disconnect between social services and faith communities concerning child abuse prevention efforts” (p. 381). More recently, the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) has underscored the need for improved collaboration and understanding between SSs and FBOs to effectively address safeguarding concerns (IICSA, 2020). The relationship between FBOs and SSs is pivotal in ensuring the safety and well-being of vulnerable individuals within communities, including children, vulnerable adults, and partners (Morrison, 2000).

FBOs often play a crucial role in the social structure of communities, offering a range of services that extend beyond spiritual guidance to include increased social capital for members (Hepworth & Stitt, 2007), health and well-being initiatives (Meads & Lees, 2018), and support for those in need (Furness & Gilligan, 2012). FBOs often have a long history and ongoing presence within the community and therefore are trusted and viewed as places of safety and security (Bielefeld & Cleveland, 2013). This is especially pertinent in the context of the United Kingdom’s diverse and multicultural society, where FBOs engage with groups that may include individuals from multicultural or marginalized areas of society who may be underserved or overlooked by SSs (Crisp, 2014). In the United Kingdom, the role of safeguarding leads within FBOs has gained increasing attention due to the unique position these organizations hold in providing support and protection to their members. However, for those individuals to be truly supported, there needs to be interagency cooperation between the FBO’s safeguarding lead and external bodies.

Although undertaken in a U.S. context, a study by O’Neill et al. (2010) into the prevention of child abuse and neglect through church and social service collaboration considered the relationship between FBOs and SSs as a useful point of reference. This study highlighted the desire of both FBOs and SSs to work together but, due to the longstanding lack of collaboration, concluded that there is a separation between the desire and the fruition of such work. O’Neill et al. (2010) cite the following factors as reasons for this: lack of time, trust, understanding, and open dialogue and reluctance and a misunderstanding of the role of the church. The study concludes that an effective child abuse prevention strategy should be comprised of FBO and SS leaders working together with shared values, clear goals and responsibilities, and accountability in the partnerships (O’Neill et al., 2010).

In the United Kingdom more recently, Oakley et al. (2016) undertook a review into the understanding of safeguarding adults and vulnerabilities within Christian FBOs. They also emphasized that definitions and recommendations did not work within the faith-based context due to the complexity of faith-based relationships and that, because of this, further work is needed in this area to consider definitions of vulnerability and risk to offer broader understanding and support to adults in faith-based contexts. Moreover, Pentaris (2023), in a qualitative study exploring how U.K. social workers integrated service users’ beliefs and social identities into interactions, found that there was a strong premise that an individual’s beliefs, spiritual view, and religious perspective were important at critical points in service use (initial assessments, conditional intervention, referrals, and child protection issues). However, the study also referenced “religious illiteracy” (p. 40) and the adoption of what was termed avoidant or utilitarian practice approaches (Pentaris, 2023). Gilligan’s (2009) review of religious beliefs and child protection safeguarding further highlights the impact of faith illiteracy and emphasizes that daily practice remains dependent on individual SS staff perceptions of and/or lack of training around FBOs.

In addition, Oakley et al. (2019) completed a study of child abuse linked to faith and belief to understand the experiences of frontline practitioners’ awareness of this type of child abuse. Through this work, they highlighted the importance of understanding faith and belief and limiting negative perceptions of FBOs to increase frontline FBO practitioners’ confidence in and trust of SSs. Moreover, the models of good practice referenced within this study were underpinned by dialogue between SSs and FBOs that diminished distrust and allowed for the building of good relationships (Oakley et al., 2019). A study by Sidebotham et al. (2016) found that safeguarding faith-based leads frequently encounter barriers such as misunderstandings of their roles, lack of communication, and differing cultural contexts.

These challenges are not confined to child safeguarding. Research by Oakley et al. (2016) highlights similar issues in protecting vulnerable adults and spouses within faith communities. Their work indicates that FBOs often lack the necessary support and understanding from SSs, which can lead to significant gaps in safeguarding vulnerable adults and addressing abuse. This suggests that there is a need to explore the processes in place that facilitate collaborative working. One method of doing this would be through the lens of normalization process theory (NPT) (C. May & Finch, 2009). NPT is a framework that explains how new practices become routinely established and embedded within their social and organizational contexts. Originally developed within health care (C. May, 2006), it has subsequently been used to explain social behavior in a variety of settings and to examine working relationships. Central to NPT are four mechanisms: coherence, cognitive participation, collective action, and reflexive monitoring. Through coherence, those within the system make sense of the working practice. Cognitive participation focuses on both engagement and commitment from all parties, collective action refers to operational collaboration where identified barriers hinder, and collective collaboration enhances partnership work. Finally, reflexive monitoring involves assessing how well things are working, and for partnerships, this means ongoing reflection, feedback, and adaptation (C. May & Finch, 2009).

Although some literature highlights the importance of multiagency working between SSs and FBOs, exploration of what works well and where improvements can be made to enhance the relationship is limited. Using an exploratory descriptive design (Hunter et al., 2019), this study aims to firstly explore factors that facilitate or hinder effective collaboration between SSs and FBOs and secondly identify the critical aspects required to enhance the multiagency working relationship in practice.