Naming and understanding harm
About this theme
Effective safeguarding starts with recognising, understanding and clearly naming harm, including its nature, severity and impact on the child. Safeguarding reviews consistently show that professionals often identify and record concerns but do not always develop a shared multi-agency understanding of the harm a child is experiencing or what it means for their daily life. When harm is not clearly recognised or described, it can become minimised, normalised or understood as a series of separate concerns rather than part of a wider pattern. Harm may be missed or underestimated where:
-
concerns are viewed in isolation rather than as part of a wider pattern
-
assessments focus on adult circumstances rather than the impact on the child
-
previous concerns are not considered alongside current events
-
language minimises abuse, neglect or exploitation
-
the cumulative impact of harm is not recognised
Key takeaway
Safeguarding requires professionals to recognise, understand and clearly name both the risks and the harm actually experienced by the child, not minimise, overlook or leave it open to interpretation.
Why this matters
Reviews consistently show that professionals often identify concerns but do not always reach a shared multi-agency understanding of the harm a child is experiencing.
When the significance of concerns is not fully recognised, harm can become minimised, normalised or understood as a series of isolated incidents rather than part of a wider pattern.
The Panel has highlighted this theme because clear identification and understanding of harm is fundamental to effective safeguarding and decision-making.
What this looks like in practice
Harm is often more complex than a single incident or presenting issue. Reviews show that concerns are not always considered alongside historical information, recurring patterns or the cumulative impact of harm over time. As a result, harmful situations can become normalised or understood as isolated events.
Professionals can sometimes focus on presenting concerns, behaviours, health issues or adult circumstances without fully exploring what these may indicate about a child’s wider experiences. This can make it harder to distinguish between need, vulnerability and harm, and may obscure broader patterns of neglect, abuse or exploitation.
The language used in assessments, records and professional discussions also matters. Language that minimises abuse, exploitation or power imbalances can affect how harm is understood and responded to. Reviews continue to show that concerns may be visible across several agencies but are not always recognised as indicators of a broader pattern of harm.
What practitioners and managers can do
- Clearly describe the harm the child is experiencing and how it is affecting their daily life and development.
- Focus on the child’s lived experience, presenting issues or levels of engagement rather than just the adult circumstances.
- Ensure historical concerns and recurring patterns inform analysis of current harm and risk.
- Be explicit about patterns, cumulative harm and whether concerns are increasing, reducing or remaining unchanged over time.
- Use language that accurately reflects the nature, severity and impact of harm, and consider whether your recording would be clear to someone reading the case for the first time.
- Seek shared understanding across agencies and use analysis, supervision, challenge and escalation processes where there is disagreement about the seriousness of harm.
- Ensure supervision routinely includes challenge around both the quality of analysis and the language used to describe harm, and supports reflection on how optimism, uncertainty, familiarity, bias or professional deference may influence understanding of harm.
The Panel recently reviewed a case where a child’s extreme obesity was the primary focus of professional concern over a number of years. While agencies worked to address the child’s physical health needs, the review found that wider experiences of neglect, caring responsibilities, trauma and unmet emotional needs were less clearly recognised.
Looking beyond the presenting issue helped reveal a broader pattern of harm and highlighted the importance of clearly identifying and naming neglect when assessing a child’s circumstances and lived experience.
- Have we clearly described the harm this child is experiencing?
- How is that harm affecting the child’s daily life, wellbeing and development?
- Are we considering patterns and cumulative harm, or focusing primarily on recent incidents?
- Have we distinguished between need, vulnerability and harm?
- Are different agencies working from the same understanding of the harm being experienced?
- Are there signs that harm is persisting despite professional involvement with the child and family?