In the UK, specifically in England, the terms “child at risk” and “child in need” have distinct legal meanings. Both terms derive from the Children Act 1989, which sets out the legal framework, roles, and responsibilities for protecting and promoting children’s welfare within a range of contexts such as health, law and education.  

When reviewing the role of an educational practitioner, whether within an early years setting or a further education college, it is important to clearly understand what each of the terms refers to and the differences between them. This is because different situations, events, and actions trigger each term.

Child “In Need”

The first term that came from the Children Act 1989 in an attempt to promote children’s health, wellbeing and safety is that of “in need”. A child or anyone under 18 or 25 years old with a Special Educational Need or Disability is classified as “in need” when they require additional support to achieve or maintain reasonable health, development or education standards. A range of factors defined within the Children Act 1989 Section 17 triggers a child to be defined as “In need”. These can include a child having a learning need or disability, family circumstances that can result in the child being unlikely to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of health or development without the provision of additional services, or social or emotional needs which may likely impair the child’s health or development.

An example of this definition in practice could look like the following:

A child with disabilities, or one whose family is struggling with poverty or mental health issues, may be considered “in need” and entitled to extra support, such as educational assistance or family services, to help ensure they can maintain a suitable standard of health and development.

Child “At Risk”

The second term that came from the Children Act 1989 in an attempt to promote children’s health, wellbeing and safety is that of “at risk”. A child is considered “at risk”, and the interventions are triggered when there are concerns that they may be suffering, or are likely to suffer, significant harm. Significant harm is defined within the Children Act 1989 as physical, emotional, or sexual abuse or neglect that is serious enough to have a lasting effect on the child’s health and development. The threshold of significant harm can also be reached if the child is witnessing harm, such as domestic violence within the family home.

The legal framework supporting the term “at risk” is Section 47 of the Children Act 1989, which places a duty on local authorities to investigate and intervene if a child is at risk of harm. This intervention may come in the form of a child protection plan or through the removal of the child from their home to ensure their immediate safety.

An example of this definition in practice could look like the following:

A child living in a household where there is domestic violence, substance abuse, or severe neglect might be considered “at risk” of significant harm.

Key Differences Between “At Risk” and “In Need”:

In Need (Section 17): Focuses on providing supportive services to prevent harm or deterioration in the child’s welfare. It is broader and less urgent than a child protection response.

At Risk (Section 47): Focuses on protecting a child from immediate harm or potential abuse/neglect. Interventions tend to be more urgent and protective in nature.

Aspect	Child In Need (Section 17)	Child At Risk (Section 47)
Primary Concern	This category covers children who require additional support but are not in immediate danger. The focus is on children whose health or development may be adversely affected by factors such as disability, learning difficulties, mental health issues, or family circumstances like poverty.	The aim is to ensure their welfare and development by offering support services that prevent their situation from deteriorating into a more serious concern. The “At Risk” category refers to children who are at immediate or serious risk of suffering significant harm, including physical, emotional, or sexual abuse or neglect. The primary concern here is to safeguard the child from abuse or harm. The interventions are usually urgent and focus on the protection of the child rather than the provision of supportive services.
Focus	The focus for children in need is on long-term supportive services that promote the child’s overall health, development, and well-being. The services provided may include access to education, health services, and support for the family to maintain a stable environment, aiming to prevent the child’s needs from escalating to a point where they would be considered “at risk.”	The focus is on preventing further or immediate harm to the child. This may involve statutory interventions such as child protection conferences, legal proceedings, or emergency protective actions to safeguard the child’s welfare. The “At Risk” category requires immediate and often protective intervention, with an emphasis on child protection measures.
Legal Threshold	For a child to be classified as “In Need,” their health or development must already be impaired, or there must be a risk of such impairment due to factors like disability. The legal threshold is lower than for children “At Risk,” as the aim is preventive, focusing on preventing the child’s situation from worsening.	A child falls into the “At Risk” category when there is clear evidence or a strong likelihood that the child is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm.  The legal threshold here is higher, requiring evidence of immediate or serious risks to the child’s well-being, and often necessitates urgent intervention.
Outcome	The outcome for children in this category is the provision of support services aimed at stabilising the child’s situation and preventing the need for more serious child protection measures. These services are designed to help the child and family cope with difficulties, thus reducing the likelihood of harm or neglect in the future.	For children “At Risk,” the outcome can be more drastic. It may result in the removal of the child from the family home if it is deemed unsafe for them to remain there. Alternatively, a child protection plan may be put in place to ensure the child’s safety, involving multi-agency cooperation to closely monitor the child’s welfare and implement safeguarding measures.