Threat

Definition

In Jigsaw, a threat is a negative uncertainty — a situation, change, or condition that, if it occurs, could reduce its chances of achieving its Swans or weaken the organization’s ability to protect children and vulnerable adults.

A threat is not a certainty of harm; it represents a possibility that could cause loss, disruption, or reduced performance. Early recognition allows the organization to take preventive or mitigating action before the damage is done.

Within Jigsaw’s NOST model — Now, Opportunities, Swan, Threats — threats are identified in direct relation to a Swan. They represent the negative uncertainties that, if left unmanaged, could delay, weaken, or prevent that Swan from being achieved.

Why It Matters

Protects what matters most: In ERM and NOST, threats are the counterweight to opportunities — they identify what could derail progress toward Swans.
Enables proactive prevention: By spotting threats early, teams can address root causes, strengthen controls, and reduce exposure.
Aligns safeguarding with strategy: Many threats to Swans are also threats to SAM performance; managing them well reinforces both objectives.

Components of a Threat

Every threat has two parts:

Cause — the event, change, or factor that could arise (e.g., staff turnover, policy gaps, negative media coverage, budget cuts).
Consequence — the negative effect on the Swan if the cause occurs and is not mitigated (e.g., reduced supervision, loss of community trust, service disruption).

Best Practice in Jigsaw

Always identify threats in relation to a specific Swan, so the risk context is clear.
Consider external (regulatory changes, community shifts, economic downturns) and internal (staff capacity, culture, process weaknesses) sources of threat.
Use the same structured approach as for opportunities: brainstorm widely, then assess which threats would have the highest impact on the Swan if not addressed.
Record and prioritize threats alongside opportunities in the T-Bar format for clarity, and review them regularly during system reviews.
Treat threats as living data within the NOST model — update them as the “Now” changes, as Swans evolve, and as new opportunities emerge.

Threat Examples

Primarily Organizational Performance (Vision/Swans)

Cause: Economic downturn reduces sponsorship → Consequence: Delayed program delivery and staff reductions.
Cause: Policy change limits access to participant groups → Consequence: Reduced service coverage and mission impact.
Cause: Technology failure in key program delivery systems → Consequence: Service disruption and loss of participant trust.
Cause: Leadership change without safeguarding transition plan → Consequence: Strategic drift and policy gaps.

Overlap: Achieving Swans & Preventing Sexual Abuse

Cause: Loss of key safeguarding-trained staff → Consequence: Decline in both program quality and safety standards.
Cause: Negative media coverage → Consequence: Reduced participation and funding withdrawal.
Cause: Facility renovations that remove clear sightlines temporarily → Consequence: Increased opportunities for unsupervised contact.
Cause: Budget cuts that reduce staffing levels → Consequence: Lower supervision quality and reduced program reach.
Cause: Safeguarding failure at a partner organization → Consequence: Reputational damage and loss of trust by stakeholders.

Primarily Preventing Sexual Abuse

Cause: New regulations increase safeguarding compliance costs → Consequence: Budget diverted from direct program delivery.
Cause: Erosion of reporting culture → Consequence: Delayed identification of risky behavior.
Cause: High turnover in front-line roles → Consequence: Gaps in safeguarding training and weakened supervision.
Cause: Rapid expansion of online contact without safeguards → Consequence: Increased exposure to boundary violations.