Child safeguarding panel calls for clarification of legal definitions of neglect

A thematic analysis published last month, "Why did it take so long to respond?", identified a number of recurring issues and systemic challenges across safeguarding practice in relation to child neglect.

According to the report, neglect is the most common form of child maltreatment in England, often co-occurring with other harms.

However, terms like ‘persistence’ and ‘serious impairment’ are “inconsistently interpreted” - delaying intervention and contributing to fragmented responses.

The report found that while distinct, poverty and neglect are “deeply intertwined”. Due to this, practitioners often struggle to differentiate between structural hardship and parental omission.

Looking at practice challenges, the analysis highlighted a range of persistent challenges that hinder timely and effective responses to child neglect.

Key examples included:

• a reluctance to name neglect, especially when linked to poverty or parental vulnerability;
• episodic and siloed responses that fail to capture cumulative harm;
• generic interventions which lack sustained engagement; and
• limited multi-agency collaboration in relation to child neglect and inconsistent use of shared chronologies.

Formulating an action plan based on its findings, the Child Safeguarding Panel called on relevant partners, including the Department for Education, to “clarify and, if deemed necessary, update legal definitions of neglect”.

The report called on government to “seek to address ambiguity around terms like “persistence” and “serious impairment,” ensuring they reflect cumulative harm and emotional neglect”.

Other recommendations included:

• Government to work with the Panel, the relevant inspectorates, safeguarding partnerships, NSPCC, the What Works Centre for Children and Families (Foundations) and other interested parties to explore the evidence base for, implementation and use of existing evidence-based tools and to consider the benefits of having a standardised national multi-agency approach.
• Commission a review of the existing evidence base on the implementation and use of evidence-based tools in relation to their usability, accessibility and effectiveness at a multi-agency level in supporting practitioner's identification, assessment and response to neglect and whether the use of tools leads to improved professional judgement and better outcomes for children - and, if this evidence does not exist, to explore the feasibility of an evaluation to improve the evidence base in this area.
• Strengthen statutory guidance to improve practitioners’ understanding of how to work in a context where there is a lack of consent. Share best practice in making available services less stigmatising for families to support positive engagement with practitioners and the overcoming of issues of consent.
• Encourage a stronger focus on the child’s daily lived experience in all neglect assessments. Relevant partners should enable practitioners to feel supported to develop and apply approaches that accurately reflect the child’s voice when neglect is being assessed — understood not only through talking to the child but through observation, behaviour, emotional presentation and home conditions.

The Child Safety Practice Review Panel works to improve the safety and wellbeing of children across England.

The Panel looks at the most serious incidents of child abuse and neglect, especially where a child has died or been seriously harmed, to identify learning that can strengthen the safeguarding system.

The Department for Education has been approached for comment.

Lottie Winson