


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.


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)





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 selfprotection 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!)


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)


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)


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
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 riskaverse practice



‘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.’

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)


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)

Without understanding the value of play we
cannot understand the value of risk-taking
Schulth (2001)

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



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






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.