Developing Risk Competence

1. Developing Risk Competence

2. background • Wider societal context – we are all living in a ‘risk society’ (Ulrich Beck) • Social work is being taken over by a risk management focus – no longer care, welfare or even facilitating change, helping people solve their problems etc. • The emergence of risk-averse practice into absurd, extreme examples. The loss of professional power or even ‘common sense’ to challenge absurdities.

3. Social work and risk • Kemshall et al. (1997) have argued that risk has become the dominant raison d’etre of the personal social services, central to priority setting and rationing, and exhibited in the activities of staff and the managerial systems used to hold them to account. (Kemshall, 2002, p.24) • This [excessive caution] is undoubtedly a real possibility in social work, as workers become afraid to show creativity and initiative, and become procedure-driven and overly concerned with self-protection. (Cree & Wallace, 2005, p.125)

4. Damaging effects of risk dominance on social work and child care • You cannot do social work or residential work if you are overly concerned with self-protection – or ‘watching your back’ • Why? Because your work is relationship-based, and it has to be an authentic relationship – not equal in terms of power, interest, etc., but genuine. • You can't be genuinely in relationship with someone if you are ‘watching your back’ – service users will detect that you aren’t being authentic with them – you are viewing them as a risk object • However there is, and always has been, a degree of self-protection involved in care work, it has become excessive • We shouldn’t think that levels of risk-aversion are the same everywhere – we found many children getting lots of exciting outdoor activities –mainly in voluntary and private sector (East Lothian honourable exception!)

5. Don’t blame the workers (too much) • Those at front-line cannot be expected to take responsibility for resisting risk-averse practice – it is the managers job to lead. • ‘Care givers need to feel safe if they are in turn to value the children in their care…When staff do not feel safe they act in ways to limit the threat’ (Smith, 2009:47)

6. The threat of risk-averse practice has been recognised by authorities • Care Inspectorate– NCS state ‘you should enjoy safety but not be over-protected’ • Tendency by care staff to pass blame onto others: ‘the inspectors wouldn’t allow it’. Rejected by CC who published an article rejecting ‘fables’ and ‘urban myths’. • The importance of appropriate risk taking in children’s physical and emotional development is crucial. All activities will have some degree of risk associated with them. (Hill, 2008, p.23)

7. Outdoor activities • A cause of huge anxiety and attempts at policy/procedure regulation – ‘no paddling without a staff member with a life saving certificate. ‘Children to be tied to a tree if fishing’ etc etc. • The story of Go Outdoors! – government backed guidance which attempted to resist risk-averse practice and absurdity

8. Some myths demolished • You need parental consent ‘for insurance purposes’ – No you don’t • Health and safety won’t allow it – Yes they will • Residential workers can’t give consent to go on a trip – Yes they can • One question remains: Will empowering guidance from the Government or the CC achieve desired result? UNCRC should be a bulwark against risk-averse practice

9. British workers discover social pedagogy • ‘over the years, ‘the head’ for example, staff policies, risk assessments, children coming in as a last resort, has dominated how I perceive and work with the young people. I have rediscovered ‘the heart’ and can see working with these young people with a renewed perspective’. • ‘The kids got right into it – they really enjoyed building the den and wanted to go back there the next day too. Even the boys who tended to fight with each other were getting on really well making the den.’

10. British workers discover social pedagogy2 • To give you an understanding of how far we've come in a short time I ask you to consider how prior to the implementation of social pedagogy we were almost considered to be 'risk-obsessed' and of having a 'cotton wool' approach to care. For example, our young people were only allowed to go to the beach if an extensive risk assessment was written, then the area was combed for dangerous objects, and subsequently, if all was ticked and approved ... they were only allowed to paddle in the sea to knee height anyway! Yet where we were previously restrained by particularly strict risk-assessment factors such as this, we have now successfully moved towards a growing confidence in our own judgement, by questioning and challenging practice and procedures in order to better socialise and equip our young people in today's society. (Bird & Eichsteller, 2011, p.1)

11. What is Risk Competence? • Process of becoming knowledgeable and skilled in assessing risks and therefore acquiring the competence to take risks more safely • ‘Children have a greater understanding of and ability to manage risk than they are given credit for’ (Gleaver, 2008)

12. Entering the Learning Zone

13. The Value of Play • Without understanding the value of play we cannot understand the value of risk-taking Schulth (2001)

14. Working with Risks Pedagogically • From unacceptable to acceptable risks: • Unacceptable risks require an understanding that children may not yet have • Acceptable risks offer benefits and can be perceived as risks by children themselves

15. Why does soc ped help? • It provides a theory-based approach – perhaps better to say a philosophical or theoretical framework – on which to base practice and defend decisions and approaches. • It is based on children’s development not (just) child protection. It is holistic. • It requires, and validates, relationship-based practice = that is ‘professional’ and ‘reflective’ relationships, not any old stuff

16. references • Bird, V. & Eichsteller, G. (2011). The Relevance of Social Pedagogy in Working with Young People in Residential Care. GoodEnoughCaring Journal 9. Retrieved 20 July, 2011, from http://www.goodenoughcaring.com/JournalArticle.aspx?cpid=155 • Cree, V., and Wallace, S. (2005). Risk and protection. In R. Adams, L. Dominelli & M. Payne (Eds). Social work futures, pp.115-127. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan. • Hill, R. (2008). “We can’t do that because the Care Commission says we can’t”. In Early Years Matters newsletter, 14, Autumn 2008, p.22-3. Retrieved June 20, 2011, from http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/Images/eymatters14_tcm4-507579.pdf • Kemshall. H. (2002). Risk, social policy and welfare. Milton Keynes: OUP. • Milligan, I. (2011). Resisting risk-averse practice: The contribution of social pedagogy.Children Australia, 36(4). 207 - 213 • Smith, M. (2009). Rethinking residential child care: Positive perspectives. Bristol: Policy press.