Understanding and responding to risk
About this theme
Risk can become minimised, insufficiently recognised or normalised when assessments are not revisited, optimism influences decision-making or attention focuses on individual incidents rather than recurring patterns. Risk is not static, understanding risk requires ongoing analysis, professional curiosity and reviewing responses and adapting assessments as circumstances change. Risk may be underestimated where:
-
concerns are viewed in isolation rather than as interacting factors
-
historical patterns and cumulative harm are not fully considered
-
emerging concerns are not recognised as meeting the threshold for action, resulting in opportunities to intervene, escalate concerns or hold strategy discussions being missed
-
the impact of language, communication, cultural and inclusion needs is not considered and acts as a barrier to understanding risk
-
protective factors are overestimated and the engagement is seen as risk mitigation
-
assessments are not updated in response to new information
Key takeaway
Understanding risk requires keeping the child’s lived experience at the centre of assessments and decision-making. This means remaining curious, reflecting on new information, recognising patterns and cumulative harm, and being prepared to adapt plans and responses as circumstances change.
Why this matters
Effective safeguarding requires an understanding of risk as dynamic, cumulative and changing over time, rather than fixed or based on isolated incidents. Reviews consistently show that children who experience serious harm are often living with multiple, interacting risks that develop and change over time. Whilst concerns may be recognised, risk is not always assessed, reviewed or responded to in a way that reflects the child’s changing circumstances.
The Panel continues to see situations where professionals focus on individual incidents rather than wider patterns, historical concerns or cumulative harm. As a result, risk can become normalised, minimised or insufficiently understood.
Effective safeguarding depends not only on understanding what risk exists today, but how it is changing, what may be increasing vulnerability and what action is needed to protect the child.
What this looks like in practice
Risk is rarely static and seldom arises from a single concern. Reviews frequently identify situations where individual risks were recognised but not fully understood in combination. Domestic abuse, coercive control, parental mental ill-health, substance use, previous safeguarding concerns and family stressors may each be known to services, but their cumulative impact on children is not always fully considered.
Understanding risk involves considering what those concerns mean for the child’s safety, wellbeing and lived experience. This includes considering how the child’s individual characteristics, identity, circumstances and experiences may influence both vulnerability and resilience.
The significance of risk can change over time. New information, changes in family circumstances, emerging vulnerabilities or periods of transition may require a different response. Reviews highlight the importance of regularly reassessing risk rather than relying on earlier assessments or assumptions.
What practitioners and managers can do
- Revisit risk regularly and consider what has changed, how you know and what this means for the child.
- Look beyond individual incidents to identify patterns, recurring concerns and cumulative harm over time.
- Keep the child’s lived experience central and consider how risk is affecting their daily life.
- Explore conflicting information and test assumptions rather than seeking evidence that supports an existing view.
- Consider whether apparent compliance reflects genuine and sustained change or may be masking ongoing risk.
- Use supervision, multi-agency discussion and professional curiosity to test analysis and strengthen decision-making.
- Ensure practitioners have opportunities for reflection and discussion when responding to complex and changing risks.
A recent serious incident involved a newborn baby whose family was known to services because of domestic abuse, parental substance use, missed appointments and previous safeguarding concerns involving other children. While these issues were recognised individually, the review found they were not consistently understood as interacting factors that increased risk to the baby.
The review highlighted the importance of considering how different vulnerabilities combine and influence one another. Bringing these concerns together provided a different understanding of the child’s circumstances and the level of safeguarding response required.
- What specific signs suggest that risk may be increasing, reducing or remaining unchanged?
- What are we most worried about and what evidence supports that concern?
- What does our understanding of this child’s history and previous experiences tell us about current risk?
- How is the child experiencing this risk in their daily life?
- Have any risks become normalised or accepted through our involvement leading to a reduced sense of urgency?
- Do all professionals involved have a shared understanding of the child’s lived experience, the risks and the actions required?