Vulnerabilities And Intentional Safeguards

1. Vulnerabilities And Intentional Safeguards Michael J. Kendrick PhD Kendrick Consulting Intl kendrickconsult@attglobal.net www.kendrickconsulting.org Michael J. Kendrick PhD

2. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. The fearful are caught as often as the bold. Helen Keller Michael J. Kendrick PhD

3. The Term “Vulnerable” Derives From The Latin Words For • WOUND (S) I.E. “VULNUS”, “VULNERIS” • TO WOUND I.E. “VULNERARE” • BEING “VULNERABLE” MEANS BEING “ABLE TO BE WOUNDED” Michael J. Kendrick PhD

4. Common Dimensions Of Human Vulnerability • Mortality • Poverty • Illness • Pain • Tragedy • Meaninglessness • Devaluation • Insecurity • Rejection • Loss • Confusion • Stagnation • Loneliness • Disruption • Estrangement • Dependency • Violence • Damage • Waste • Reputation • Guilt • Despair Michael J. Kendrick PhD

5. The Character Of Vulnerability • Vulnerability is integral to human nature and the human condition • People are vulnerable in multiple dimensions • Vulnerabilities co-exist alongside other vulnerabilities and influence each other. • Vulnerability is always a matter of degree i.e. it is usually portrayed relative to another stage of vulnerability Michael J. Kendrick PhD

6. The Character Of Vulnerability • Vulnerabilities usually increase or decrease by linear increments; nevertheless they can radically alter their character under the right conditions • Vulnerability can co-exist with great strengths, advantages and considerable resilience Michael J. Kendrick PhD

7. The Character Of Vulnerability • Vulnerabilities are not only those “of persons”, they can also be those of culture, circumstances, environments, systems and mentalities. • Vulnerabilities are not inherently good or bad; they are evaluated as such by persons and cultures Michael J. Kendrick PhD

8. The Character Of Vulnerability • One can “vulnerate” (i.e. make vulnerable) or “in-vulnerate” a person or group depending on one’s actions • Vulnerabilities can certainly be a component of the enjoyment of life and thus may be “life-giving” irrespective of the values of a culture Michael J. Kendrick PhD

9. The Character Of Vulnerability • Vulnerabilities, properly appreciated, can lead to greater wisdom about what is important in life • Intentional safeguards are part of the way we live with vulnerability, before, during and after wounding moments, though suffering may still be present even when we have managed it well Michael J. Kendrick PhD

10. Common Sources of Vulnerability for People Receiving Services • Misunderstanding of the person and their needs • Misplacement into an incorrect system • Application of harmful treatments • Disrespect of rights • Institutionalisation/custodialisation • Deprivation of valid treatment • Indifference/neglect • Low expectations Michael J. Kendrick PhD

11. Common Sources of Vulnerability for People Receiving Services (Cont) • Negative role expectations/false stereotypes • Dehumanisation(s) • Segregation from community • Loss of autonomy • Loss of personhood/identity • Involuntary poverty • Use to benefit other interests • Predation • Abuse • Denial of/ refusal to provide service • Poor service models and theories Michael J. Kendrick PhD

12. Some Examples Of Common Vulnerabilities Of People Who Are Unusually Dependent On The Formal Health Care System • Being perceived or valued negatively • Being seen as diverting resources from more worthy uses • Not being seen as meriting even normative levels of quality of care and attention • Being perceived as probably being unresponsive to treatment i.e. not worth trying very hard on behalf of • Not having powerful advocates amongst most professionals and managers Michael J. Kendrick PhD

13. Some Examples Of Common Vulnerabilities Of People Who Are Unusually Dependent On The Formal Health Care System • Having needs that require flexibility, vision and responsiveness from medical bureaucracies • Being misdiagnosed, misunderstood and possibly mistreated due to false assumptions or theories about such persons • Very little role and credibility given to the voice and capacities of non-professionals Michael J. Kendrick PhD

14. Examples of Vulnerabilities That May Be Present For Person With Disabilities • Reliance on others for critical life functions • Non-recognition of dangers • Inability to fully communicate their needs and wants • A tendency to be patronised or be overlooked • Neglect • Exposure to agency failures and dysfunctions • Sexual exploitation in isolated and controlled residential settings Michael J. Kendrick PhD

15. Examples of Vulnerabilities That May Be Present For Person With Disabilities • Utilisation as a pawn for vested interests • Misunderstanding of their crucial needs by decision makers • Stereotypes especially stigmatising ones • Being forced into irrelevant and even life wasting programmes • Rejection • Segregation • Death making, brutality and violence • Poverty and powerlessness Michael J. Kendrick PhD

16. Common Vulnerabilities Of Groups Who Are At Risk Of Social Devaluation That May Need Safeguarding • Risk of impoverishmentand neglect • Risk of social exclusion or isolation • Risk of rejection • Displacement from familiar surroundings and supports, eg. family, neighbourhood • Lack of rights, autonomy, freedom • Ignorance of their options, choices, possibilities • Little say in the structures, authorities that control their lives • Deprivation of supports crucial to their health and wellbeing, eg. food, medicine • A misrepresentation of their needs, identities, wishes, etc. Michael J. Kendrick PhD

17. The Management Of Vulnerability • Vulnerabilities can be “managed” either adaptively or not • Vulnerabilities must be properly recognized and appreciated if they are to be managed well • Many vulnerabilities cannot ultimately be eliminated though they can be sensibly offset or compensated for Michael J. Kendrick PhD

18. The Management Of Vulnerability • Given that vulnerabilities are multi-dimensional, it is usually necessary to develop strategies which are equally multi-dimensional and properly targeted • The potency of strategies used to safeguard people must match the potency of the vulnerability that is present to be optimal in their effect, though some beneficial effects can come from sub-optimal safeguards Michael J. Kendrick PhD

19. The Management Of Vulnerability • Strategies to manage vulnerability need to be revised in accord with the changes that shape the character of vulnerability and in a timely manner • The conditions that produce vulnerability are frequently ones that are beyond one’s immediate control and influence, and therefore must be “managed”, (from one’s position in the scheme of things), so as to “survive” them as best as may be possible Michael J. Kendrick PhD

20. The Management Of Vulnerability • Vulnerabilities can be hierarchically ordered from the superficial to the profound, and therefore so can be the order of priority of strategies used to manage these • The management of vulnerabilities requires the selection of priorities in order to marshal available safeguarding capacity most effectively Michael J. Kendrick PhD

21. The Management Of Vulnerability • All strategies to manage vulnerability operate within the context of (usually multiple) limits, and the conscious and adaptive management of these limits is a necessity • The development of safeguarding strategies will greatly depend on how important such safeguards are to the key parties involved Michael J. Kendrick PhD

22. The Management Of Vulnerability • Otherwise valid strategies to safeguard people or other assets may not be practical in many situations, and lesser remedies may have to suffice • “Best possible at present” strategies are what is sought not wishful speculations Michael J. Kendrick PhD

23. The Management Of Vulnerability • Safeguards are only effective when they actually adaptively manage vulnerability in practice • The overall available capacity to safeguard people or situations is not usually a fixed “given”, but can be developed to some degree notwithstanding the inevitable limits that are present Michael J. Kendrick PhD

24. The Management Of Vulnerability • Safeguarding people properly will routinely require that other parties be challenged and confronted, whether and how well this is done will predict the outcome • It is quite common that reducing the vulnerability of one group may heighten the vulnerability of another acting on their behalf e.g. advocacy may incur costs for the advocate Michael J. Kendrick PhD

25. The Management Of Vulnerability • It is to be expected that “safeguards dilemmas” will exist indefinitely and a new set of dilemmas will emerge from the resolution of earlier dilemmas • The resolution of “safeguarding dilemmas” will normally occur by increments of change in each dimension of the dilemmas rather than be “solved” for once and for all Michael J. Kendrick PhD

26. The Management Of Vulnerability • Otherwise good safeguards can be implemented poorly or even harmfully • The safeguarding parties may themselves be in need of some measure of safeguarding if they are to be effective • Poor safeguarding may well make people more rather than less vulnerable i.e. Weak safeguards or “safe-guarders” may actually increase vulnerability Michael J. Kendrick PhD

27. The Management Of Vulnerability • The quality of safeguards approaches will derive from the solidness of the assumptions about people, vulnerabilities and the actual character of circumstances • It is possible to learn to manage vulnerability better and to educate others about what has been learned thereby improving the “state of the art” Michael J. Kendrick PhD

28. The Management Of Vulnerability • It is possible to learn to manage vulnerability better and to educate others about what has been learned, thereby improving the “state of the art” • It is also possible to manage safeguarding in a vacuum of guidance, support and inspiration such that the quality of safeguarding is much less than might have been possible. Michael J. Kendrick PhD

29. Common Constitutive Elements Of The Capacities Of Those Who Might Undertake Safeguarding Roles • Their capabilities to properly recognize and attend to vulnerabilities • Their degree of weakness due to various conflicts of interest they may be in • Their enduring resolve to engage in painful, committing and costly safeguarding and the supports needed to do so Michael J. Kendrick PhD

30. Common Constitutive Elements Of The Capacities Of Those Who Might Undertake Safeguarding Roles • Their ability to imagine and negotiate often novel and innovative safeguards • Their degree of vision for the person and their potentials • Their status and legitimacy to act in a safeguarding role • Their skilfulness and finesse Michael J. Kendrick PhD

31. Common Constitutive Elements Of The Capacities Of Those Who Might Undertake Safeguarding Roles • Their experience with the role and their ability to learn and master what is needed • Their dependability and fidelity to people’s best long-term interests • Their organizational, emotional, moral, technical and financial support Michael J. Kendrick PhD

32. Common Constitutive Elements Of The Capacities Of Those Who Might Undertake Safeguarding Roles • The degree to which they can accept and operate within their limits • The degree to which they have the specific talents to match the safeguarding problems at hand • Their ability to muster and maintain crucial alliances in support of safeguarding Michael J. Kendrick PhD

33. Common Constitutive Elements Of The Capacities Of Those Who Might Undertake Safeguarding Roles • Their ability to renew themselves; particularly if the roles they play are demanding • Their ability to reliably stay focussed on the right things. • Their accountability for their actions in the safeguarding role. • The quality of their judgment calls. Michael J. Kendrick PhD

34. Some Examples Of Useful SafeguardsFor Safeguarders • Various ongoing opportunities to be oriented to and clarify their role • Occasions to recognize, examine and resolve the potential conflicts of interests they may have • Opportunities to define and create the supports that might help strengthen them in their role Michael J. Kendrick PhD

35. Some Examples Of Useful SafeguardsFor Safeguarders • Opportunities to develop the skills they need and which they are capable of improving upon • Mentorship, consultation and guidance from trustworthy persons • Deliberate occasions to examine, reflect upon and better manage the weaknesses and limitations that are present in their context of safeguarding Michael J. Kendrick PhD

36. Some Examples Of Useful SafeguardsFor Safeguarders • Exposure to innovative strategies • Contact with others who share a safeguarding role • Assistance with deciding what safeguarding issues ought to be set as a priority and why • Regular occasions for renewal and inspiration Michael J. Kendrick PhD

37. Why Intentional Safeguards May Be Needed? Some Examples Of Some Common Limitations In Addressing Human Needs Inherent In Organizations Michael J. Kendrick PhD

38. Examples Of Some Common Limitations In Addressing Human Needs Inherent In Human Beings Who Attempt To Do So • People may not want to serve others • There may be to many to serve • It may not be clear what needs to be done • What may need to be done may be too difficult • It may be that one cannot serve well • It may be that one loses interest in serving Michael J. Kendrick PhD

39. Examples Of Some Common Limitations In Addressing Human Needs Inherent In Human Beings Who Attempt To Do So • One may serve erroneously • One may dislike those who need to be served • One may have conflicts of interests • One may too weak to withstand temptations to serve insufficiently • One may be encouraged to serve by many of the wrong motivations Michael J. Kendrick PhD

40. Examples Of Some Common Limitations In Addressing Human Needs Inherent In Human Beings Who Attempt To Do So • One may not be aware that one serves poorly • One person may have too much pride to seek help from others • One may overlook or discredit the wishes of those to be served • The needs of others may be insatiable • The needs of the server may be unhelpful to those to be served Michael J. Kendrick PhD

41. Examples Of Some Common Limitations In Addressing Human Needs Inherent In Human Beings Who Attempt To Do So • The complexity of understanding others may outstrip the ability of the person to do so • The server cannot get along with other crucial servers • The server lacks ambitiousness in terms of “imagining better” • The person may give up too easily too often. Michael J. Kendrick PhD

42. Examples of Some Common Limitations In Addressing Human Needs Inherent In Organizations • The organisation may not wish to serve others • There may be too many who have been chosen to serve • It may not be clear what is to be done • What needs to be done is too difficult for the organisation Michael J. Kendrick PhD

43. Examples of Some Common Limitations In Addressing Human Needs Inherent In Organizations • What needs to be done cannot be done by an organisation • It may be that many in the organisation dislike those being served • The organisation may be filled with conflicts of interest • The organisation may put other needs first Michael J. Kendrick PhD

44. Examples of Some Common Limitations In Addressing Human Needs Inherent In Organizations • Those being served are not well understood by the organisation • The organisation’s own bureaucratic functioning dissipates its potential to be of good service • The service organisation is unprepared for its role Michael J. Kendrick PhD

45. Examples of Some Common Limitations In Addressing Human Needs Inherent In Organizations • The serving organisation cannot gain the cooperation from both within and without for what is needed • The serving organisation lacks leadership • The service acts incorrectly and harmfully • The service has too few of the needed strengths Michael J. Kendrick PhD

46. Examples of Some Common Limitations In Addressing Human Needs Inherent In Organizations • The serving organisation was established for another reason • The service lacks steadfastness and fidelity to those being served Michael J. Kendrick PhD

47. Examples Of Issues That Can Serve As Points Of Struggle For Competing Vested Interests In Service • Control of service users • Designation of who is a service user • Access to authoritative decision making • Setting of policy • Priority setting • Control of resources • Distribution of resources • Access to “perks” • Hiring/dismissal of personnel • Location of services • Character of services • Status assignments Michael J. Kendrick PhD

48. Examples Of Common Limitations Individuals May Exhibit In Taking Advantage Of Genuinely Empowering Opportunities • Indecision • Naivete • Inexperience • Timidity • Impatience • Lack of finesse • Poor judgment • Lack of appreciation of consequences • Confusion • Intimidation • Anxiety • Lack of information • Weak vision of potentialities • Willingness to settle for less • Underdeveloped ideas • Lack of clarity re goals • Fear of change • Poor advice/ conflicting advice Michael J. Kendrick PhD

49. Key Areas To Consider In Evaluating Areas Where Targeted Agency Safeguarding May Be Helpful • Agency values • Agency goals • Agency priorities • Personnel selection • Personnel preparation and supervision • Coherency of the agency’s model • The consistency between values and practice Michael J. Kendrick PhD

50. Key Areas To Consider In Evaluating Areas Where Targeted Agency Safeguarding May Be Helpful • Clarity and regularity of planning • Administrative thoroughness • External influence on the agency’s practice • Coordination of effort • Programme intensity • Peculiarities of “agency culture” • Renewal of personnel and mission Michael J. Kendrick PhD