It isn’t what you see. It’s what you don’t see. Tackling neglect in schools

In April 2026, The Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel published ‘Why did it take so long to respond?’. This thematic analysis examines multi-agency responses to child neglect in cases of serious harm or death.

Maybe unsurprisingly, the analysis identified several recurring issues and systemic challenges across safeguarding practice in relation to child neglect. The overarching view was ‘neglect remains under-recognised and under-addressed’ and ‘a strategic, child-centred, and trauma-informed approach is essential to ensure timely, effective, and compassionate safeguarding’ (CSPR, 2026, p.9).

What were the key findings?

Prevalence and impact

Neglect remains the most common child maltreatment in England and often sits alongside other forms of harm. Between April 2017 and March 2023, recorded offences involving adults neglecting, mistreating or assaulting children increased by 106% (NSPCC, 2024).

It is often challenging for practitioners and agencies to understand the harm it is causing, as neglect can often be cumulative and subtle, meaning individual incidents may not meet statutory thresholds for intervention. The long-term impact can be profoundly damaging to children’s health and wellbeing.

Definitional ambiguity

Working Together (2026) describes neglect as ‘the persistent failure to meet a child’s basic physical and/or psychological needs, likely to result in the serious impairment of the child’s health or development’ (p.135). The analysis identified that terms used within this definition such as ‘persistent’ and ‘serious impairment’ were inconsistently interpreted by professionals which delayed intervention and lead to confusion as to what ‘counts’ as neglect.

The report identified the pervasive and cumulative nature of neglect which makes it difficult for practitioners and agencies to identify patterns of harm, particularly linked to the ‘‘fragmented start stop nature of professionals responses to neglect’ (CSPR, 2026, p.10).

Systemic barriers

High thresholds, consent frameworks and under-resourced services were identified as hindering early help and co-ordinated safeguarding.

The requirement to obtain parental consent was considered a challenge at times, with limited evidence of efforts by professionals to understand why parents were refusing services or consideration of how worries or fears of professional involvement could be addressed.

Professionals within the analysis spoke of a lack of clarity and consistency in how referrals for neglect were considered by Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hubs (MASH). Unlike physical abuse or sexual abuse, significant harm linked to neglect can be harder to evidence due to its often-cumulative nature, meaning referrals were often being rejected with a ‘wait and see’ approach, often delaying action.

A further systemic issue was the lack of consistent information sharing between agencies, with practitioners failing to share concerns or practical support (like food, clothing etc) already being provided. This led to other agencies assuming families were coping.

Poverty and neglect

The relationship between poverty and child neglect is complex and often misunderstood. Poverty is not the same as neglect, but it can both mask and intensify neglectful parenting. The analysis identified some practitioners being hesitant to label neglect when linked to poverty, fearing stigma or overlooking structural inequalities. This approach can hinder honest conversations with parents and lead to fragmented safeguarding responses.

Schools and third-sector organisations increasingly provide essentials and practitioners may hesitate to label neglect when linked to poverty, fearing stigma or overlooking structural inequalities.

Importantly, only some children living in poverty are neglected, and neglect also occurs in affluent families, where it may also be overlooked due to assumptions about socioeconomic status. Practitioners must assess neglect based on children’s lived experiences, not just family circumstances.

Underuse of tools

Whilst a range of tools exist to support the identification, assessment and response to neglect, the analysis identified that they are rarely used in practice leading to episodic and siloed responses that failed to capture the cumulative harm element Practitioners reported that they had a lack of training and familiarity with the tools, that time constraints limited their usage and that there was unclear expectations/limited integration into local polices leading to a lack of clarity about when and how to use them.

Due to these barriers, and the tendency for tools to be applied within single agencies rather than multi-agency contexts, opportunities to establish a shared understanding of neglect and promote consistent decision-making were often lost.

Children’s voices

Despite statutory guidance emphasising the importance of hearing from children, the analysis showed that their voices were often absent from child neglect assessments. There were occasions when there was an over-reliance on accepting adult accounts and views to inform decision-making and a consistent theme of the lack of observation of parent–child interactions, which are crucial for understanding attachment, emotional availability and the quality of care.

Children’s views, feelings and experiences were sometimes overlooked or misinterpreted, particularly when their behaviour was seen as problematic rather than symptomatic of unmet needs.

Next Steps

The analysis helpfully sets out suggested next steps for Government, safeguarding partnerships and everyone with an interest in tacking child neglect and suggests an action plan which considers four main areas :

1. Clarify and, if deemed necessary, update legal definitions of neglect

2. Use of evidence-based neglect tools

3. Strengthen statutory guidance to improve practitioners’ understanding of how to work in a context where there is a lack of consent

4. Encourage a stronger focus on the child’s daily lived experience in all neglect assessments

As a DSL, what can I do?

Know how to identify neglect and how to respond – ensure your staff are clear about signs of symptoms of the types of neglect and are clear about referral pathways. Find out more about our updated resources on neglect for DSLs.

Build relationships with families where you have concerns - how can you see the world through their eyes, through the eyes of their children, and what do they need to initiate and sustain change?

Use a structured approach when you have concerns - does your setting have a way of working with concerns that gathers information, develops an analysis, creates a plan to effect change and monitors the progress you have made. Find out more about our Helping Families training course, designed to enable DSLs to purposefully work with and support families.

Consider how vulnerabilities might impact on individuals – think about the specific circumstances of individual students and their families and whether there might be times and situations when there might be increased likelihood of neglect occurring.

Consider avenues of support for students and families, including local early help processes - signpost to support services, ensuring that this is through as many different routes as possible (e.g., leaflets, posters, conversations, etc.) and that information can be accessed discretely for those who might prefer this.

Understand and use the local processes – it is possible that your Local Safeguarding Children Partnership has neglect tools for all types of professionals and settings to use to help identify and respond to neglect. Shared understandings and language can help agencies work together to address neglect.

Capture the child's voice, feelings and experiences – ensure the voice of the child is present within your recording.

Keep a chronology – neglect is not necessarily about one event but an accumulation of several different concerns and observations. It's important that these are noted at the time to allow the building of a bigger picture of the experiences of the child or young person.

Escalate if referrals are being pushed back by the Local Authority – use the local Escalation Procedures if you feel referrals are wrongly being pushed back by MASH.

Take action – and keep taking action until you know children and young people are safe.

References

Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel (CSPRP) (2026). “Why did it take so long to respond?” – Child neglect: A thematic analysis. London: CSRP. Available at: https://childsafeguarding.independent-panel.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Child_neglect_A_thematic_analysis-1.pdf

HM Government. (2026). Working together to safeguard children. London: Department for Education. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/69c2c4ce380a2a73a7cf9df4/Working_together

NSPCC. (2024a). Statistics briefing: Neglect. London: NSPCC. Available at: https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/media/hukmdrp2/statistics-briefing-neglect-august-2024.pdf

About the author: Sophie Baker is a senior social work leader with over 20 years experience in frontline and practice development roles.