risk in social work essay

Subject List
Take a Tour
For Authors
Subscriber Services
Publications
African American Studies
African Studies
American Literature
Anthropology
Architecture Planning and Preservation
Art History
Atlantic History
Biblical Studies
British and Irish Literature
Childhood Studies
Chinese Studies
Cinema and Media Studies
Communication
Criminology
Environmental Science
Evolutionary Biology
International Law
International Relations
Islamic Studies
Jewish Studies
Latin American Studies
Latino Studies
Linguistics
Literary and Critical Theory
Medieval Studies
Military History
Political Science
Public Health
Renaissance and Reformation

Social Work

Urban Studies
Victorian Literature
Browse All Subjects

How to Subscribe

Free Trials

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Risk Management in Social Work

Introduction, general overviews.

Negligence Theory: Tort Law and Standards of Care
Licensing and Regulatory Standards
Federal Statutes and Regulations
State and Provincial Statutes and Regulations
Codes of Ethics
Client Rights
Informed Consent
Confidentiality and Privileged Communication
Conflicts of Interest, Boundary Issues, and Dual Relationships
High-Risk Interventions
Use of Technology
Consultation and Referral
Supervision
Documentation
Termination of Services
Practitioner Misconduct and Impairment
Licensing Board Complaints, Ethics Complaints, and Litigation

Other Subject Areas

Forthcoming articles expand or collapse the "forthcoming articles" section.

Child Welfare Effectiveness
Rare and Orphan Diseases and Social Work Practice
Unaccompanied Immigrant and Refugee Children
Find more forthcoming articles...
Export Citations
Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Risk Management in Social Work by Frederic G. Reamer LAST REVIEWED: 25 August 2021 LAST MODIFIED: 25 August 2021 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780195389678-0019

Social workers face several possible risks when they provide services to individuals, couples, families, small groups, communities, and organizations. Risk that is managed skillfully and professionally protects clients, third parties, social workers, and social workers’ employers. Risk that is managed poorly can harm clients and others. Parties that believe they have been harmed by social workers may file lawsuits and formal complaints with state licensing boards and professional associations. Some risks arise when social workers do not adhere to prevailing ethical standards in the profession and pertinent laws and regulations. Others arise when social workers fail to obtain or use proper education and training or when they are impaired. Key risks involve client rights, informed consent, confidentiality and privileged communication, conflicts of interest, boundary issues and dual relationships, high-risk interventions, use of technology, consultation, supervision, documentation, and termination of services.

Social workers can consult several useful publications and resources to help them grasp key concepts related to risk management, professional negligence, standards of care, and licensing and regulatory standards. Bucky, et al. 2009 ; Kavaler and Alexander 2014 ; Nakamura and Carroll 2011a ; Nakamura and Carroll 2011b ; and Nakamura and Carroll 2011c provide useful, comprehensive overviews of the concept of risk management in settings that provide health and mental health services. Hart 2014 focuses specifically on clinical challenges involving high-risk clients who pose a threat to themselves or others. Reamer 2001 examines risk management issues in social work. Reamer 2015 provides a comprehensive overview of risk management issues in social work and practical strategies to protect clients and prevent malpractice claims, liability, and disciplinary proceedings. Rome 2013 ; Saltzman, et al. 2016 ; and Slater and Finck 2012 provide broad overviews of the relevance of law in social work practice.

Bucky, Steven, Joanne Callan, and George Stricker, eds. 2009. Ethical and legal issues for mental health professionals in forensic settings . New York: Routledge.

This anthology provides a valuable overview of ethical and legal issues that arise in child custody cases, preparation of forensic reports, and civil lawsuits. Clinicians and attorneys offer practical advice for clinicians who serve as expert witnesses and who testify in depositions and courtrooms. The book includes a summary of common malpractice claims and regulatory board actions.

Hart, Chris. 2014. A pocket guide to risk assessment and management in mental health . Abingdon, UK, and New York: Routledge.

DOI: 10.4324/97802037955

A useful overview of risk-management issues and challenges involved in the assessment of high-risk clients. Focuses on issues related to suicide, self-harm, and dangerousness. Provides a practical discussion of clinical skills practitioners can use to prevent risk.

Kavaler, Florence, and Raymond Alexander, eds. 2014. Risk management in health care institutions: A strategic approach . 3d ed. Burlington, MA: Jones and Bartlett.

A valuable introduction to the concept of risk management and the topics of quality assurance, risk-management strategies and protocols, professional standards, regulations, ethics, and malpractice. This comprehensive text explores risk-management issues in various settings, such as psychiatric hospitals, medical hospitals, nursing homes, home care programs, and managed care organizations.

Nakamura, Peggy, and Roberta Carroll, eds. 2011a. Risk management handbook for health care organizations . Vol. 1, The essentials . 6th ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

The first volume of a three-volume set provides a comprehensive introduction to the concept of risk management, legal concepts, development of a risk management program, ethical issues, documentation, and information technology.

Nakamura, Peggy, and Roberta Carroll, eds. 2011b. Risk management handbook for health care organizations . Vol. 2, Clinical risk . 6th ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

The second volume of a three-volume set provides a comprehensive introduction to client safety, crisis management, research issues, behavioral health, critical care, home care, and long-term care.

Nakamura, Peggy, and Roberta Carroll, eds. 2011c. Risk management handbook for health care organizations . Vol. 3, Business risk: Legal, regulatory & technology issues . 6th ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

The third volume of a three-volume set provides a comprehensive introduction to risk mapping, managed care, employment practices liability, advertising liability, claims and litigation management, information technology, statutes and regulations, standards, and privacy.

Reamer, Frederic G. 2001. The social work ethics audit: A risk management tool . Washington, DC: National Association of Social Workers.

Provides step-by-step instructions for social workers who want to conduct a comprehensive ethics audit. Reamer summarizes the nature and purposes of an ethics audit and provides a comprehensive outline of issues to examine in an audit.

Reamer, Frederic G. 2015. Risk management in social work: Preventing professional malpractice, liability, and disciplinary action . New York: Columbia Univ. Press.

Provides in-depth discussion of risk areas in social work that can lead to ethics complaints and malpractice claims. The author highlights impairment issues and provides an overview of pertinent ethical and legal concepts, summarizes common risks, and reviews relevant ethical standards in social work.

Rome, Sunny. 2013. Social work and law: Judicial policy and forensic practice . Boston: Pearson.

This book provides an overview of the ways in which social work and the law intersect. Rome discusses basic legal concepts that are relevant to social work. The author distinguishes among pertinent statutory, case, and regulatory laws.

Saltzman, Andrea, David Furman, and Kathleen Ohman. 2016. Law in social work practice . 3d ed. Boston: Cengage.

This text includes discussions focused on key risk-management issues in social work. Topics include social work regulation, licensing board complaints, exceptions to client confidentiality, boundary issues, documentation, termination of services, impaired practice, malpractice and liability, criminal liability, and liability insurance.

Slater, Lyn, and Kara Finck. 2012. Social work practice and the law . New York: Springer.

The authors provide a thorough review of the ways in which social workers can address clients’ needs in diverse legal contexts. The authors’ discussion of the role of social work in civil proceedings is especially helpful to practitioners concerned about risk management.

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login .

Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here .

About Social Work »
Meet the Editorial Board »
Adolescent Depression
Adolescent Pregnancy
Adolescents
Adoption Home Study Assessments
Adult Protective Services in the United States
African Americans
Aging out of foster care
Aging, Physical Health and
Alcohol and Drug Abuse Problems
Alcohol and Drug Problems, Prevention of Adolescent and Yo...
Alcohol Problems: Practice Interventions
Alcohol Use Disorder
Alzheimer's Disease and Other Dementias
Anti-Oppressive Practice
Asian Americans
Asian-American Youth
Autism Spectrum Disorders
Baccalaureate Social Workers
Behavioral Health
Behavioral Social Work Practice
Bereavement Practice
Bisexuality
Brief Therapies in Social Work: Task-Centered Model and So...
Bullying and Social Work Intervention
Canadian Social Welfare, History of
Case Management in Mental Health in the United States
Central American Migration to the United States
Child Maltreatment Prevention
Child Neglect and Emotional Maltreatment
Child Poverty
Child Sexual Abuse
Child Welfare
Child Welfare and Child Protection in Europe, History of
Child Welfare and Parents with Intellectual and/or Develop...
Child Welfare, Immigration and
Child Welfare Practice with LGBTQ Youth and Families
Children of Incarcerated Parents
Christianity and Social Work
Chronic Illness
Clinical Social Work Practice with Adult Lesbians
Clinical Social Work Practice with Males
Cognitive Behavior Therapies with Diverse and Stressed Pop...
Cognitive Processing Therapy
Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy
Community Development
Community Policing
Community-Based Participatory Research
Community-Needs Assessment
Comparative Social Work
Computational Social Welfare: Applying Data Science in Soc...
Council on Social Work Education
Counseling Female Offenders
Criminal Justice
Crisis Interventions
Cultural Competence and Ethnic Sensitive Practice
Culture, Ethnicity, Substance Use, and Substance Use Disor...
Dementia Care
Dementia Care, Ethical Aspects of
Depression and Cancer
Development and Infancy (Birth to Age Three)
Differential Response in Child Welfare
Digital Storytelling for Social Work Interventions
Direct Practice in Social Work
Disabilities
Disability and Disability Culture
Domestic Violence Among Immigrants
Early Pregnancy and Parenthood Among Child Welfare–Involve...
Eating Disorders
Ecological Framework
Economic Evaluation
Elder Mistreatment
End-of-Life Decisions
Epigenetics for Social Workers
Ethical Issues in Social Work and Technology
Ethics and Values in Social Work
European Institutions and Social Work
European Union, Justice and Home Affairs in the
Evidence-based Social Work Practice
Evidence-based Social Work Practice: Issues, Controversies...
Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs
Families with Gay, Lesbian, or Bisexual Parents
Family Caregiving
Family Group Conferencing
Family Policy
Family Services
Family Therapy
Family Violence
Fathering Among Families Served By Child Welfare
Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders
Field Education
Financial Literacy and Social Work
Financing Health-Care Delivery in the United States
Forensic Social Work
Foster Care
Foster care and siblings
Gender, Violence, and Trauma in Immigration Detention in t...
Generalist Practice and Advanced Generalist Practice
Grounded Theory
Group Work across Populations, Challenges, and Settings
Group Work, Research, Best Practices, and Evidence-based
Harm Reduction
Health Care Reform
Health Disparities
Health Social Work
History of Social Work and Social Welfare, 1900–1950
History of Social Work and Social Welfare, 1950-1980
History of Social Work and Social Welfare, pre-1900
History of Social Work from 1980-2014
History of Social Work in China
History of Social Work in Northern Ireland
History of Social Work in the Republic of Ireland
History of Social Work in the United Kingdom
HIV/AIDS and Children
HIV/AIDS Prevention with Adolescents
Homelessness
Homelessness: Ending Homelessness as a Grand Challenge
Homelessness Outside the United States
Human Needs
Human Trafficking, Victims of
Immigrant Integration in the United States
Immigrant Policy in the United States
Immigrants and Refugees
Immigrants and Refugees: Evidence-based Social Work Practi...
Immigration and Health Disparities
Immigration and Intimate Partner Violence
Immigration and Poverty
Immigration and Spirituality
Immigration and Substance Use
Immigration and Trauma
Impact of Emerging Technology in Social Work Practice
Impaired Professionals
Implementation Science and Practice
Indigenous Peoples
Individual Placement and Support (IPS) Supported Employmen...
In-home Child Welfare Services
Intergenerational Transmission of Maltreatment
International Human Trafficking
International Social Welfare
International Social Work
International Social Work and Education
International Social Work and Social Welfare in Southern A...
Internet and Video Game Addiction
Interpersonal Psychotherapy
Intervention with Traumatized Populations
Interviewing
Intimate-Partner Violence
Juvenile Justice
Kinship Care
Korean Americans
Latinos and Latinas
Law, Social Work and the
LGBTQ Populations and Social Work
Mainland European Social Work, History of
Major Depressive Disorder
Maternal Mental Health
Measurement, Scales, and Indices
Medical Illness
Men: Health and Mental Health Care
Mental Health
Mental Health Diagnosis and the Addictive Substance Disord...
Mental Health Needs of Older People, Assessing the
Mental Health Services from 1990 to 2023
Mental Illness: Children
Mental Illness: Elders
Meta-analysis
Microskills
Middle East and North Africa, International Social Work an...
Military Social Work
Mixed Methods Research
Moral distress and injury in social work
Motivational Interviewing
Multiculturalism
Native Americans
Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders
Neighborhood Social Cohesion
Neuroscience and Social Work
Nicotine Dependence
Occupational Social Work
Organizational Development and Change
Pain Management
Palliative Care
Palliative Care: Evolution and Scope of Practice
Pandemics and Social Work
Parent Training
Personalization
Person-in-Environment
Philosophy of Science and Social Work
Physical Disabilities
Podcasts and Social Work
Police Social Work
Political Social Work in the United States
Positive Youth Development
Postmodernism and Social Work
Postsecondary Education Experiences and Attainment Among Y...
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
Practice Interventions and Aging
Practice Interventions with Adolescents
Practice Research
Primary Prevention in the 21st Century
Productive Engagement of Older Adults
Profession, Social Work
Program Development and Grant Writing
Promoting Smart Decarceration as a Grand Challenge
Psychiatric Rehabilitation
Psychoanalysis and Psychodynamic Theory
Psychoeducation
Psychometrics
Psychopathology and Social Work Practice
Psychopharmacology and Social Work Practice
Psychosocial Framework
Psychosocial Intervention with Women
Psychotherapy and Social Work
Qualitative Research
Race and Racism
Readmission Policies in Europe
Redefining Police Interactions with People Experiencing Me...
Rehabilitation
Religiously Affiliated Agencies
Reproductive Health
Research Ethics
Restorative Justice
Risk Management in Social Work
Rural Social Work in China
Rural Social Work Practice
School Social Work
School Violence
School-Based Delinquency Prevention
Services and Programs for Pregnant and Parenting Youth
Severe and Persistent Mental Illness: Adults
Sexual and Gender Minority Immigrants, Refugees, and Asylu...
Sexual Assault
Single-System Research Designs
Social and Economic Impact of US Immigration Policies on U...
Social Development
Social Insurance and Social Justice
Social Intervention Research
Social Justice and Social Work
Social Movements
Social Planning
Social Policy
Social Policy in Denmark
Social Security in the United States (OASDHI)
Social Work and Islam
Social Work and Social Welfare in East, West, and Central ...
Social Work and Social Welfare in Europe
Social Work Education and Research
Social Work Leadership
Social Work Luminaries: Luminaries Contributing to the Cla...
Social Work Luminaries: Luminaries contributing to the fou...
Social Work Luminaries: Luminaries Who Contributed to Soci...
Social Work Regulation
Social Work Research Methods
Social Work with Interpreters
Solution-Focused Therapy
Strategic Planning
Strengths Perspective
Strengths-Based Models in Social Work
Supplemental Security Income
Survey Research
Sustainability: Creating Social Responses to a Changing En...
Syrian Refugees in Turkey
Systematic Review Methods
Task-Centered Practice
Technology Adoption in Social Work Education
Technology for Social Work Interventions
Technology, Human Relationships, and Human Interaction
Technology in Social Work
Terminal Illness
The Impact of Systemic Racism on Latinxs’ Experiences with...
Transdisciplinary Science
Translational Science and Social Work
Transnational Perspectives in Social Work
Transtheoretical Model of Change
Trauma-Informed Care
Triangulation
Tribal child welfare practice in the United States
United States, History of Social Welfare in the
Universal Basic Income
Veteran Services
Vicarious Trauma and Resilience in Social Work Practice wi...
Vicarious Trauma Redefining PTSD
Victim Services
Virtual Reality and Social Work
Welfare State Reform in France
Welfare State Theory
Women and Macro Social Work Practice
Women's Health Care
Work and Family in the German Welfare State
Workforce Development of Social Workers Pre- and Post-Empl...
Working with Non-Voluntary and Mandated Clients
Young and Adolescent Lesbians
Youth at Risk
Youth Services
Privacy Policy
Cookie Policy
Legal Notice
Accessibility

[66.249.64.20|185.66.14.236]
185.66.14.236

Search Menu
Advance articles
Editor's Choice
Author Guidelines
Submission Site
Open Access
About The British Journal of Social Work
About the British Association of Social Workers
Editorial Board
Advertising and Corporate Services
Journals Career Network
Self-Archiving Policy
Dispatch Dates
Journals on Oxford Academic
Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Young people and risk—locating the problem, young people behaving badly public perceptions, policy responses, constructing youth as a risky business, research and theoretical insights, conclusion—implications for social work.

< Previous

Young People, Risk Taking and Risk Making: Some Thoughts for Social Work

Article contents
Figures & tables
Supplementary Data

Elaine Sharland, Young People, Risk Taking and Risk Making: Some Thoughts for Social Work, The British Journal of Social Work , Volume 36, Issue 2, February 2006, Pages 247–265, https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bch254

Permissions Icon Permissions

Policy makers, professionals and the public have become increasingly concerned with identifying and managing young people who are not only troubled or at risk, but troubling or risky. Social work, however, has been relatively silent on the subject. In social work practice, young people have become largely ‘someone else’s problem’; in the academy, relatively little critical attention has been given to their risk taking, or to the way we ‘make’ or construct it. This paper takes an exploratory rather than systematically comprehensive journey, across a range of discursive terrains, to open up the debate. Examining current concerns with youth and risk, it explores some of the social and psychological theory bases whereby youth is constructed as a risky business. Drawing on empirical research from several disciplines, it examines patterns and dynamics of young people’s risk taking, and explores concepts of risk culture and cultural learning, identity capital and Bourdieu’s notion of ‘habitus’, to frame these. The discussion highlights the need for critically reflective social work to understand the complex interplay of identity and agency, structure, culture and context that underpins young people’s risk taking. It encourages us to scrutinize our judgements of what is acceptable or unacceptable riskiness, what within and what beyond the pale.

The idea of youth at risk has become central to a range of discourses, academic and professional. In the regional and global contexts of significant social, economic and technical change, narratives of risk and uncertainty are widespread ( Beck et al ., 1994 ; Beck, 1999 ; Giddens, 1999 ). Young people, meanwhile, are seen both as a treasured resource and as endangered and dangerous—at risk from others, to themselves, and to the fabric of communities ( Kelly, 2000 a , 2000 b , 2003 ). The category of ‘youth at risk’, and the imperatives to protect, monitor, contain and sustain young people in the transition to responsible adulthood, have come to the fore on multiple intellectual and professional agendas.

Politicians and policy makers are increasingly exercised by how to prevent young people from taking or being exposed to risk, from becoming socially excluded, deviant, unhealthy or unproductive ( Social Exclusion Unit, 1999 , 2000 a , 2000 b ; Home Office, 2003 ; Office of National Statistics, 2004 ). However, in social policy and social work, there are some noteworthy ambivalences and gaps in the way that young people and risk are currently framed. Meanwhile, academic social work discourse is surprisingly quiet on the topic. A brief tour of national and international social work journals reveals that there is a dearth of work dedicated specifically to young people as a category, let alone to youth and risk. Where such work appears, it does so only with reference to discrete subgroups, presenting distinct problems, for targeted concern. On the ‘welfare’ side of the care/control divide, we see care leavers, teenage parents, young homeless, addicts or those with mental health problems, considered as discrete populations of youth at risk ( Bunting and McAuley, 2004 a , 2004 b ; Davis et al ., 2002 ; Stead et al ., 2004 ; Stevens, 2004 ). Slightly more prominent, perhaps, have been those on the ‘control’ side of the divide—young people increasingly highlighted in policy as troublesome rather than troubled, at risk of offending or simply being offensive ( Goldson, 2000 ; 2002; D. Smith, 2003 ; R. Smith, 2003 ; Whyte, 2004 ).

Striking, however, in its absence from academic social work is a wider discourse on the status of risk in young people’s lives, our understanding and response to it—this in a context where popular, professional and policy wisdoms denote adolescence and youth as a period of ‘storm and stress’, when individuals are more than ever likely to become risky to themselves and others.

From this discursive absence stem two further observations. First, what is difficult to discern from the literature are the understandings that currently guide social work practice with young people and risk. Perhaps it is simply naive to search for these now? The most cursory conversation with practitioners about social work with young people in the UK context raises eyebrows either in puzzlement or resignation. In climates of resource restriction and narrowing of the social work role within the wider preventive agenda, mainstream social work practice with young people is a luxury rarely afforded ( Department of Health, 1996 ). More and more, responsibility for young people ‘belongs’ to other agencies, public, voluntary, independent or community sector—a shift no doubt accentuated by the growing separation of children’s from adult services, with young people falling (in)conveniently between. On top comes the implicit sliding scale of professional blame culture, with culpability for child protection failures judged even more heinous for younger children than older; thus the former, of necessity, is prioritized. That it may be naive to search now for the research and theory bases of social work with young people may be true. But this is no argument for ignoring the case for social work with young people at risk, nor indeed for ignoring research and theoretical insights to inform it.

A second observation is that there is a wealth of research and theoretical discussion about young people and risk, taking place within a range of disciplines under the broad, if multi-coloured, umbrella of youth studies. Despite their heterogeneity, most commentators share a vision of young people as a risky population, either by definition or by virtue of the contemporary world they live in. Academic social work debate has taken little of this on board. This paper aims to make a start.

In doing so, several challenges are faced. The first is simply defining the terms of youth and risk for consideration. Clearly, it makes sense to distinguish in the detail between thirteen and twenty-year-olds. To open the broader debate, however, it is helpful to consider research and theory that concerns all those from early teens to twenty. As for risk, the focus here will be on risk taking as opposed to risk exposure, acknowledging that that the two are in multiple ways connected. Here too it is important to distinguish in the detail between, for example, practising unsafe sex, school exclusion, alcohol abuse or criminality. To begin the debate, however, young people and risk taking merit consideration in the round.

More challenging is the task of making connections between the very different empirical and theoretical discursive strands within youth and risk studies, all too often either tangled or passing each other by ( Cohen and Ainley, 2000 ; France, 2000 ; Kelly, 2000 b ). Psychology, social theory, sociology, medicinal science, criminology, educational and cultural studies have brought to the field different objects and processes of enquiry, different knowledges, different truths. This paper marks a beginning not an end to teasing from this web some coherent and constructive threads for social work to follow.

The discussion looks first at current concerns with, and responses to, young people and risk, focusing on the British context. Turning then to the wider national and international literature, it explores some of the theoretical bases on which youth is constructed as a risky business, examining, as the title of the paper suggests, both risk taking and risk making. The former focuses on questions of agency, structure and identity. The latter reflects critically on the ways in which young people, and youth itself, have become constituted as risky. Finally, the discussion turns to specific research and theoretical developments that might inform social work understanding and practice.

Historically, public discourses have used young people as a barometer of social ills, with whatever threats they appear to pose taken as indicators of society’s moral decline ( Brannen et al ., 1994 ). Currently, this seems more than ever so, with mounting evidence marshalled, feeding public anxiety and neo-liberal policy reaction ( Côté, 2002 ; The Guardian , 13 September 2004).

It is not difficult to rehearse the catalogue of indictors available in the UK to support this case; Coleman and Schofield (2003) have provided a well documented digest of concerns. Mental health problems, commonly with adolescent onset, have reached worrying levels—suicidal behaviour and self harm particularly so. Far too many young people, especially females, smoke. Levels of alcohol consumption and binge drinking are among the worst in Europe, as is young people’s use of illicit drugs. Sexual activity starts increasingly early, with the most vulnerable practising unsafe sex. Sexually transmitted disease and HIV rates are higher than ever, teenage conceptions and abortions among the highest in Europe. School exclusions are hugely on the increase, and antisocial behaviour in all its forms perceived as a growing blight. Official youth crime rates have soared since 1950, with self-reported offending even higher. Neither our youngsters’ own futures, nor the society they will constitute, look a pretty sight.

There is, of course, an alternative story to be told. Drawing again on Coleman and Schofield (2003) , we may marshal the countervailing evidence to question not necessarily whether the ‘problem’ exists, but how it becomes inflated, stereotyped, to the point of moral panic. Drug use, for example, is mostly short-term, experimental and ‘soft’. Teenage conception rates (albeit high) have decreased steadily over the last five years. Meanwhile, young people are staying longer in education/training, with a corresponding reduction in unemployment. Most striking of all, official youth crime trends have actually moved downwards over the last decade, with young people more likely than others to be the victims, rather than perpetrators, of crime ( Goldson, 2002 ). And in the broadest sense of all, we are faced with the anomaly that risk taking, or ‘edgework’, is often applauded for adults, but rarely for young people ( Plant and Plant, 1992 ; Lupton, 1999 ). There is a clear case for questioning why young people are so pervasively regarded, even demonized, as risky.

A preliminary step is to locate current public and policy responses to young people and risk within contemporary neo-liberal discourses. Here, residual principles of welfarism remain, but conditionally so, and in tension with the revived distinction between deserving and undeserving. Self-regulation is posited as the route to social inclusion ( Lupton, 1999 ; Forsythe and Jordan, 2002 ; Garrett, 2003 a , Garrett, 2003 b ). As for social work, the professional role has become replete with contradictions. Struggling to uphold traditions of support and empowerment for the vulnerable, its role has become primarily disciplinary, ‘tough love’ promoting normative self-regulation where possible, coercion where not ( Jordan, 2004 ). Notable expressions of this can be seen in child and family social work, embedded in the Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families ( Department of Health, 2000 ) and in the shades of ‘big brother’ lurking behind parenting orders, Information Sharing and Assessment, ID cards and the like ( Garrett, 2003 a , 2004). Noteworthy, too, has been a terminological shift evidenced in Every Child Matters ( Department for Education and Skills, 2003 ) and the Children Act 2004. The overarching designation of children and young people ‘at risk’ has come to embrace not just those in some way at risk of significant harm, but also those in danger of presenting risk to others, or to ‘preferred futures’. Within the risk rhetoric, there has effectively been an elision between the agendas of care and control. In the case of young people, some have argued, concerns with the former have been significantly subsumed, even hijacked, by the latter ( Goldson, 2000 ; 2002).

A brief look at the raft of recent policy developments focusing on young people in England and Wales confirms both the blurring of the concept of risk, and the devolution of responsibility for its prevention and management away from social work. At national and local levels, policy initiatives have become polarized between those primarily preventive of social exclusion, and those coercive, for youngsters risky to the rest of us. Into both categories may fall those who engage in one way or another risky behaviour, but the distinction between those deserving support and those warranting correction is never explicit. Either way, with the possible exception of care leavers, they are primarily not the problem of social work.

On the side of reducing risk of social exclusion, we have seen numerous governmental strategies and schemes, in all sectors, targeted at children and young people, aiming among other things to reduce poverty, improve environments and promote participation. We have Education Action Zones, and increased vocational training opportunities. We have multi-agency Health Action Zones, Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services, and, at last, a National Service Framework for those with health or mental health problems. For those at risk of offending, we have preventive schemes such as On Track; for those further along the slippery slope, Youth Offending Teams. For sex education, pregnant or parent teenagers, we have a wide range of initiatives promoted by the Social Exclusion Unit, the Teenage Pregnancy Unit and others. Connexions is now the service to which young people are expected to turn not only for support in progressing from education to work, but with personal problems too. The ‘joined-upness’ and success of these initiatives is much disputed ( Goldson, 2002 ; Department for Work and Pensions, 2004 ), but it is safe to say that significant gaps remain apparent. The dearth of services for young people with mental health problems, for example, has been well publicized (Young Minds, 2004); a 2004 Department for Education and Skills survey demonstrated that young people may indeed turn to Connexions with educational/vocational issues, but rarely with other problems ( Department for Education and Skills, 2004 ). Once upon a time, these might have been for social work. Finally, those young people who have crossed the bureaucratic boundary (at eighteen) between childhood and adulthood must, for the most part, take their chances along with everyone else in the world of adult services.

Beyond this, we come to young people defined as risky not just to themselves, but to ‘us’. Paradoxically, these may now be embraced within the rhetorical category of ‘at risk’, but they or their parents are increasingly designated worthy not of support but surveillance, control, punishment. Certainly, there are preventive and restorative components of policy and practice emerging from recent youth justice legislation (D. Smith, 2003 ). However, more striking has been the shift in emphasis from ‘youth justice’ to ‘youth offending’, the slide away from mainstream social work intervention, and the thrust towards punitive regulation, itself potentially criminalizing ( Goldson, 2002 ; R. Smith, 2003 ; Whyte, 2004 ). For those aged over eighteen years (adults), the thrust of policy, in reality tougher on crime than the causes of crime, is yet more apparent. As for young people’s risk taking, whether it merits care or control, neither seems much the business of social work any more. To begin to redress the balance, we need to look first at the bases in psychological and social theory upon which youth and risk are configured.

While the conventional ascription of turbulence to the transitional state of youth is a matter of some dispute ( Coleman and Hendry, 1999 ), most commentators agree that this is a period in which major transitions are to be negotiated, both in the internal self, and with the expectations of the external world. For better or worse, it is represented as a risky business.

For psychologists, this is largely the case by definition. Risk taking itself is regarded as part not only of abnormal but normal development, carrying not just negative but positive consequences. Certainly, we are alerted to the pathological bases of some risk taking behaviours, such as eating disorders and substance misuse ( Rutter and Smith, 1995 ). Nonetheless, many normative formulations of adolescent psychology embrace risk taking. Cognitive developmental theory explains it in terms of the growing, but not yet fully developed, capacity to recognize the consequences of their own actions and the perspectives of others ( Kohlberg, 1976 ; Heaven, 1996 ). For Elkind (1967) , adolescents’ egocentric social cognitions prompt them to develop ‘personal fables’; the resulting exaggerated concept of invulnerability carries dangers, but emerges from a normal developmental process. Those focusing on identity development argue that young people’s risk taking and experimentation are necessary parts of the individualization process, required for full identity achievement ( Marcia, 1966 ; Erikson 1968 ; 1980). Accordingly, we may imagine, for example, Jane, a sixteen-year-old girl, truanting from school when ‘bored’, smoking a little, clubbing a lot and returning too drunk to remember. While her behaviours might prompt anxiety in those concerned for her best interests, her actions are to be seen simply as steps along the path to individuation and maturity. Indeed, much of the psychological literature presents adolescence as a risky business, but one in which risk taking is not only normal but desired—bearing the eventual fruits of integrated sense of self, self-esteem and self-regulation ( Irwin and Millstein, 1986 ; Jack, 1986 ). All too often, nonetheless, this induces the ‘pedagogical paradox’—in the desire to protect young people or ourselves, we prevent them from achieving the maturity that risk taking and learning from mistakes might afford ( de Winter and Noom, 2003 ).

From sociological and other disciplinary perspectives, there are alternative ways of considering youth as a risky business—not by definition so much as by virtue of the world we live in. Within these quite disparate discourses, most are agreed that the nature of young people’s transitions to adulthood has changed markedly in the space of one generation. Prolonged years in education, later entry into the workforce, reduced state support for independence and delayed home-leaving have made young people’s trajectories towards adulthood more protracted, desequenced and fragmented than before ( Jones and Wallace, 1990; Jones, 1995 ; Cohen and Ainley, 2000 ; EGRIS, 2001 ). Here, however, the consensus ends. What it means to be young in contemporary times is hotly contested, with questions of agency and structure, individualization, risk and regulation brought to the fore. The terms of this debate are not unfamiliar to academic social work. They have, for example, been exemplified by the engaging ‘rumble in the jungle’ between Ferguson (2001 , 2003 ), fighting for life politics, and Garrett (2003 b , 2004) for emancipatory politics, with Houston (2004) extending the mediating hand of realism. However, social work has turned little of this theoretical attention towards young people and risk.

Beginning to do so, we may look first to the work of Beck and Giddens ( Beck et al ., 1994 ; Beck, 1998 , 1999 ; Giddens, 1991 , 1999 ). Both propose that, in the post-traditional order, the social, economic, political and cultural foundations of modern industrial society have been overturned. Risk and uncertainty are the insignia of a ‘runaway world’ ( Giddens, 1999 ), by virtue of newly manufactured dangers or the dissolution of institutional constraints, destabilized social structures and diminished expert certainties. Individuals are forced to interpret diverse, unpredictable experiences in order to establish their own coherent biographies. No longer regulated by external structures and norms, the self has become a fluid and ‘reflexive’ ‘biographical project’ ( Giddens, 1991 ). With this comes the potential for all the new freedoms and life choices so gladly trumpeted by ‘third way’ politics. But at the same time, conditions of doubt penetrate all social life; self and identity are necessarily fragile, individualization becomes a lonely business ‘full of risks which need to be confronted and fought alone’ ( Bauman, 2002 , p. xvii).

For young people, the transition to adulthood becomes replete with opportunities and risks. Put positively, ‘life politics’ holds that young people may now as never before be the architects of their own lives, free to negotiate their own pathways, take or avoid their own risks ( Wallace and Kovatchevka, 1998 ; ESRC, 2004 a ). Jane is freer now than ever to decide to become a doctor, a dancer or a drop-out, to drink, smoke, or to play safe, as her heart and mind dictate. She may invent and re-invent herself as she goes—the agent of her own fulfilment. Put more bleakly, however, the life politics thesis and the culture of individualism increasingly hold young people accountable for their own lives. All too often, the public, policy and personal expectations of responsibility and fulfilment belie lived experience, generating the sense of failure, marginalization and, for some, mental ill-health ( Rutter and Smith, 1995 ; EGRIS, 2001 ). Jane might all too easily, for example, find herself out of work, unskilled, pregnant, lonely and depressed—and all, apparently, a consequence of her own actions.

Challenges to the risk society and individualization theses have been levelled on several counts. Among the foremost has been that they defy empirical evidence or investigation ( Alexander, 1996 ; Dingwall, 1999 ). Some recent empirical work, however, has attempted to test this, in part confirming the utility of Beck’s and Giddens’ theses. Environmental and health technology risks, for example, have indeed been shown to be more globalized, less recognized and less controllable now than ever. The notion of ‘organized irresponsibility’ has been helpful in explaining and challenging corporate and governmental (mis)management of environmental risks ( Benn, 2004 ; Crotty and Crane, 2004 ; Matten, 2004 ) and risks generated through drug and medical technologies ( Møldrup and Morgall, 2001 ; Turner, 2001 ; Møldrup et al ., 2002 ). However, empirical substantiation of Beck’s thesis is less clear when it comes to areas closer to the topic of this paper. Tulloch and Lupton (2003) , examining risk and risk taking in everyday life, give a mixed verdict. Agreeing with Beck, they find evidence of heightened awareness of risk, and individualized risk calculations made in detachment from traditional ties. Nonetheless, they conclude that ‘the risk society thesis … is not sufficiently situated, not sufficiently concerned with localized “tales from the field”’ ( Tulloch and Lupton, 2003 , p. 128). Instead, they note how culturally specific and varied are people’s perceptions of risk, and how complex are their constructions of it, both negatively and positively. We will return to these themes at a later point, when scrutinizing the empirical evidence of young people’s risk taking.

For the present, however, the focus of discussion turns to the criticisms of risk society and individualization theses more prominently to be found in the youth studies literature. The first is that Beck and Giddens all but ignore the continuing influence of social structure on individual and social lives; the second, that they elide, or exclude from consideration, issues of power.

The social structural critique recognizes the centrality of contemporary preoccupations with risk and individualization, but disputes their bases in reality. Despite dramatic social and economic change, existing patterns of inequality—poverty, class, gender and ethnic differences—continue to be reproduced ( Bourdieu, 1977 ; Furlong and Cartmel, 1997 ). This thesis is well represented generally in the social work literature ( Goldson, 2002 ; Garrett, 2002; 2003 a ; 2003 b ), but the particular implications for young people and risk are not well explored. There is, however, sound evidence to suggest that the nature and success of the transition to adulthood are much influenced by class, culture, material and social resources; those less privileged struggle harder, are more exposed to risk and more likely to take it ( Parker et al ., 1998 ; Bynner, 2001 ; Schoon and Bynner, 2003 ). Seen in this light, Jane’s risk taking behaviours—now perhaps stretching to recreational drug use, unsafe sex or antisocial behaviour—might be recognized as escapism from poorly resourced, mundane everyday life. Deeper still, according Furlong and Cartmel (1997) , cuts the pernicious ‘epistemological fallacy’, generated by a culture of individualism. Young people like Jane are structurally denied opportunity to become stakeholders in the adult world, but encouraged by the culture of individualism to believe themselves accountable. Frustrated and self-blaming, Jane may all the more readily turn to alternative, risky sources of satisfaction and esteem. If we are to understand her behaviour, we need to understand much more fully the complexities of structure and agency involved.

The second major challenge to the Beck/Giddens thesis draws on Foucauldian theory, and prompts us to scrutinize our constructions of what is risky and what is not, what within and what beyond the pale. This approach accepts that late-modern society is preoccupied with risk and uncertainty, but holds that both must be understood as manifestations of ‘governmentality’ (Foucault, 1991). Governmentality denotes the strategies whereby norms, designed to regulate populations and individuals, are discursively generated through ‘expert knowledges’ and deployed through multiple institutions, diverse and localized power relationships ( Rose and Miller, 1992 ; Rose, 1996 ; Dean, 1999; Lupton, 1999 ). Risk, therefore, exists not as some external reality but as a ‘calculative rationality’ of governance, through which particular groups or individuals may be identified as ‘at risk’ or ‘high risk’, and thereby observed, managed, disciplined. Neo-liberal governmentality, in particular, privileges the norm of self-regulation above all. The individual is invested with moral responsibility, guided by experts to make rational choices over lifestyle, body and mind. Where targeted as a member of a ‘risky’ group, Jane will be in need of extra support to self-regulate—to stay in education, to use contraception, to stay within the law. Where she fails meet normative standards, more coercive disciplinary techniques will come into play.

This line of argument, too, has its detractors, not least on grounds of its non-democratized constructivism, its tendency to downplay both the potential for independent agency and the ‘reality’ of palpable dangers ( Strydom, 2002 ). Nonetheless, its emphasis on governmental and professional preoccupations with normativity and risk is helpful here. The terms of Foucauldian critique are also familiar enough to academic social work debate; in particular, the co-opting of the profession into the apparatus of ‘tutelary bureaucracy’ has been well highlighted ( Pease and Fook, 1999 ; Garrett, 2003 a ; Jordan and Jordan, 2000; Jordan, 2004 ). But, again, little of this critique has focused directly on young people and risk. By contrast, others in the wider field of youth studies, notably Kelly (2000 a , 2000 b , 2003) and Taite (1995) , have called into question the way that youth is now constructed as, by definition, a risky category. Risk narratives, they argue, provide the promise, the justification and techniques for regulating young people’s behaviour, dispositions and ‘preferred futures’. Institutionalized structural inequalities are recoded as complex but quantifiable factors that place certain groups of young people at risk. Seen this way, the culture of individualism is an expression of the technology of governance that leaves young people feeling accountable for their own fates. Thus, neo-liberal governmentality, desirous of ensuring that Jane and her peers become responsible citizens, constructs her as ‘at risk’—of becoming a ‘scrounger’, a teenage mother, a ‘yob’—by virtue not of her class, culture or circumstances, but of her own risk taking behaviour. Paradoxically too, the regulatory strategies of governmentality may well prompt in Jane exactly the risk taking behaviour—to escape or resist the imperative to self-regulate—that they seek to control. But most importantly for Kelly, the danger of youth at risk discourses lies in their relentless pursuit of order and elimination of diversity, projects that ‘may lend themselves easily and joyously to political uses—anytime and everywhere’ ( Bauman, 1990 , pp. 40–1, cited in Kelly, 2000 b ). Kelly would neither dispute nor trivialize the risks that Jane may take; but worse by far would be to stand by and watch her become formed, or transformed, into a Stepford Wife or member of a latter-day Hitler Youth.

The present discussion, of course, seeks to place young people’s risk taking on, not off, the social work agenda. For us, however, the Foucauldian critique is instructive in that it prompts us to reflect critically on our responses to young people and risk. That there is a strong case for further social work understanding of young people’s risk taking has already been argued. At the same time, however, we must continue to question whether professional responsibilities lie with encouraging the expression of young people’s own identities, or simply promoting those that conform to accepted norms ( Lorenz, 2000 ).

For practitioners to become ‘epistemically reflexive’, they need to be theoretically and research informed, capable of in-depth critical reflection on the constructions influencing their practice ( Eraut, 1995 ; White, 1997 ; Ixer, 1999 ). For social workers potentially engaging with risky young people, the challenges are especially daunting—less because existing constructions must be unpicked than because they are little developed in practice. Despite sound enough guides for practice with teenagers (Sinclair et al ., 1995; Triseliotis et al., 1995; Daniel and Wassell, 2002 ), few of the recent research and theoretical developments in the wider field of youth studies have been noted or absorbed into social work. The ecological model now in vogue in child and family work ( Bronfenbrenner, 1979 ) rests on inexplicit notions of the relationship between individual and context ( Houston, 2004 ). Related concepts of vulnerability and resilience tell us more about coping with risk than taking it ( Daniel and Wassell, 2002 ). Meanwhile all these constructions tend towards normativity, encouraging us little to question our yardsticks for acceptable or unacceptable risk ( Garrett, 2003 a ). This section of the paper draws together some recent research findings and theoretical formulations in this area that might offer insights for social work practice. The review is exploratory rather than exhaustive or conclusive—it makes a start.

Looking first at patterns (rather than dynamics) of risk taking, there is good evidence from psychological and sociological research to persuade us that young people’s welfare and riskiness are associated with their material, cultural and relational contexts, the resources and role models available, and the extent to which they feel connected, supported, recognized ( Jessor, 1984 ; Kagan, 1991 ; Schoon and Bynner, 2003 ). Several of the behaviours most worrying to policy makers, welfare professionals and public alike—smoking and teenage pregnancy, school exclusion, antisocial behaviour and crime—have been linked to social deprivation, albeit often mediated through family practices ( Coleman and Hendry, 1999 ; Schoon and Bynner, 2003 ). Locality and culture are also influential: a government report in 2002, for example, exposed how locally situated is young people’s risky sexual behaviour ( Department for Education and Skills, 2004 ). Risk taking and risk perception differ for those growing up in cultures espousing traditional family and community values from those espousing individualism ( Brannen et al ., 1994 ). Family relationships and parenting styles themselves are influential, too. Where, for example, parents take a negotiative stance, neither overly restrictive nor unprotective, nor giving mixed messages, their teenagers are more likely to make socially acceptable and beneficial risk calculations ( Brannen et al ., 1994 ; Grotevand and Cooper, 1998 ). Finally, peers, too, are powerful mediators of young people’s risk choices. Contrary to public perception, this may well be in the direction of regulation rather than deviation ( Coleman and Hendry, 1999 ). Indeed, it seems that young people are more likely to say that they use drugs, in order to ‘look cool’, than actually to do so (FRANK, 2004), and also more likely to be influenced by what others do than by what they say ( ESRC, 2004 b ). Nonetheless, there is strong evidence that peer groups influence young people’s normalization of risk, and their taking of it—whether in the quest for social identity or kudos, for escapism or thrill, or simply to fit in ( Hendry and Kloep, 1996; 2000; Green et al ., 2000 ; Denscombe, 2001 ; Lawy, 2002 ; France, 2000). As for Jane, we know little or nothing of any of these elements in her life; were we seeking to work effectively with her as social workers, we would need to find out.

This brief overview of risk taking patterns and their associations is sufficient to persuade us that none of the models of self-inventing free agent, nor socio-structurally determined enactor, nor (un)regulated self-regulator, is alone sufficient to explain young people’s risk taking, nor what we make of it. Exploration of recent research on the dynamics and constructions of risk taking, however, may take our understanding further.

… risk, identity and learning are mutually constituative … the challenge facing … young people (is) to seam together risk, identity and learning within a coherent narrative, and to do so in the face of competing interests and structural limits in the knowledge that the balance between them might, at any moment, be changed ( Lawy, 2002 , p. 407).

For Jane, as for her peers, the meaning of risk taking—be it about ‘normal’ experiment, or normalized riskiness, escapism, or pursuit of status and pleasure—will be fluid, learned and shaped as she develops her identity in contexts. Ingham et al . (1993) and Shiner and Newburn (1997) , for example, show us how young people’s risk beliefs about sex or drugs become habituated, mediated through social relationships, transmitted wisdoms, localized myths, and experience-based knowledges. Green et al . (2000) demonstrate how young people construct normalizing risk hierarchies, with associated risk reputations conferring status or stigma, in social and cultural contexts. There will also be power dimensions influencing the risk choices made in context. Girls like Jane, for example, may feel disempowered from pursuing ‘condom negotiations’, or may choose to smoke to resist the authority of the ‘good girl’ image ( France, 2000 ). And so the interplay of agency and identity, structure and context, turns.

To take our understanding further, we may look beyond the empirical to certain theoretical formulations that might inform the study of youth, transition and risk. Emerging from a range of disciplines, these are not easily stitched together without risk of obscuring their distinctions. What they share, however, is common recognition of the need to move beyond the dualism of structure and agency. First, we may look to the constructs of social, individual or identity capital. While for Putnam (2000) social capital is predominantly an attribute of communities, for Coleman (1988) it denotes the access of individuals to resources, information, networks and trustworthy relationships, as the basis for action. Raffo and Reeves (2000) , for example, echo the latter formulation, in suggesting that an ‘individualised system of social capital’ evolves for each young person. For Jane, like others, this takes shape in the context of the material and symbolic resources available to her, in the social, cultural, economic and temporal spaces that she inhabits. Her individualized system of social capital may either support or constrain her actions, her choices and, in turn, her outcomes. Côté (2002) , focusing more on identity formation, elaborates on how both the ‘tangible’ identity capital resources (material, class, gender, access) available to each young person, and the ‘intangible’ (personality, relationship qualities, intellectual attributes), will differ. As Jane deploys these, they will cumulatively differentiate her from others, influencing the investments she makes in her own life and the risks she takes.

Young people are social actors in a social landscape. How they perceive the horizons depends on where they stand in the landscape and where their journey takes them. Where they go depends on the pathways they perceive, choose, stumble across or clear for themselves, the terrain and the elements they encounter. Their progress depends on how well they are equipped, the help they can call on when they need it, whether they go alone or together and who their fellow travellers are. If policies and interventions are to be made effective, we need to sharpen our awareness of the interplay of structural forces and individual’s attempts to control their lives ( Evans, 2002 , p. 265).

This discussion has sought to explore and to set on the social work agenda both young people’s risk taking and risk making—our construction of youth as a risky business. There is a central paradox here: why bother critiquing professional and policy fixations with young people as risk when social work of all disciplines pays them little attention at all? The answer is that simply the fact that young people have become, by default, ‘not social work’s problem’ neither explains nor justifies their omission. It is not difficult to marshal the evidence of research and lived experience confirming that youth is potentially a risky time, either by definition or particularly in contemporary times. That the ‘problem’ should not be sidestepped by social work is a starting point. How it may be addressed must be the subject of further discussion and research; this paper aims not to conclude but to open the debate.

This said, three points stand out for social work thus far. First, there is indeed a wide range of research and theory from related disciplines that might inform social work thinking and practice with young people and risk. While some constructs explored—social structuralist, post-modernist, Foucauldian—are familiar enough in academic social work, few have been applied directly to young people, and fewer or none incorporated into the packages of ‘ready-made’ knowledges available for practitioners ( Taylor, 2004 ). Perhaps this is no bad thing. However challenging it may be to make collective sense of research and theoretical insights coming from quite disparate sources, we have the chance to do so, without the need to subvert existing entrenched wisdoms. For critical and reflexive social work practice, this can only be an opportunity.

A second key message must be that when we seek to understand young people’s risk taking, we need to consider them as agents of their own lives, pursuing their own trajectories, situated within their own social, material, cultural and relational worlds. Neither the life politics of reflexive individualization, nor the determinism of social structuralism, nor the regulatory thrust of governmentality, is sufficient to explain the complex interplay of agency, structure and power involved. To understand these, we need to look more closely at what risk taking means to young people, its dynamics, and the relationships and resources surrounding it. We might also draw on some particular concepts—risk culture, cultural learning, identity capital or habitus—to elucidate. Most importantly, we must recognize that risk taking is integrally bound up with the development of young people’s identities. To problematize this is a necessary and productive activity for informing practice. But to consider risk taking always and necessarily problematic would be missing the point. We must start by recognizing risk taking as a routine, even desirable, component of young people’s lives and development. Where and how we begin to define it as troubling or troublesome must then be up for scrutiny.

This brings us to the third and final message for social work: that we must look not only to what risk taking means in young people’s lives, but to what we ‘make it’ in our professional minds and actions. Rather than simply going along with neo-liberal orthodoxies, we need consistently to question the distinction between what is normal and abnormal, acceptable and unacceptable risk—between youth in transition, youth in trouble and youth as trouble. If we are to aspire to social work practice with young people that is critically reflexive and embraces uncertainty ( Taylor and White, 2000 , 2001 ), that is constructive and dialogical ( Parton and O’Byrne, 2000 a , 2000 b ; Pease, 2002 ), and that maintains its long-held commitment to mediating individuals and society, we could do worse than start from here.

Alexander , J. ( 1996 ) ‘Critical reflections on “reflexive modernisation”’, Theory, Culture and Society , 13 , pp. 133 –8.

Bauman , Z. ( 1990 ) Modernity and Ambivalence , Cambridge, Polity Press.

Bauman , Z. ( 2002 ) ‘Forward: individually, together’, in Beck, U. and Beck-Gernsheim, E. (eds), Individualisation , London, Sage.

Beck , U. ( 1998 ) Risk Society , London, Sage.

Beck , U. ( 1999 ) World Risk Society , Cambridge, Polity Press.

Beck , U. , Giddens, A. and Lash, S. ( 1994 ) Preface, in Beck, U., Giddens, A. and Lash, S. (eds), Reflexive Modernisation: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order , Cambridge, Polity.

Benn , S. ( 2004 ) ‘Managing toxic chemicals in Australia: a regional analysis of the risk society’, Journal of Risk Research , 7 (4), pp. 399 –412.

Bourdieu , P. ( 1977 ) ‘Cultural reproduction and social reproduction’, in Karabel, J. and Halsey, A. (eds), Power and Ideology in Education , Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Bourdieu , P. ( 1986 ) ‘The forms of capital’, in Baron, S., Field, J. and Schuller, T. (eds), Social Capital: Critical Perspectives , Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Bourdieu , P. ( 1990 ) In Other Words: Essays Towards a Reflexive Sociology , Cambridge, Polity Press.

Brannen , J. , Dodd, K., Oakley, A. and Storey, A. ( 1994 ) Young People, Health and Family Life , Buckingham, Open University Press.

Bronfenbrenner , U. ( 1979 ) The Ecology of Human Development , Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.

Bunting , L. and McAuley, C. ( 2004 ) ‘Research review: teenage pregnancy and motherhood: the role of support’, Child and Family Social Work , 9 (2), pp. 207 –15.

Bunting , L. and McAuley, C. ( 2004 ) ‘Research review: teenage pregnancy and parenthood—the role of fathers’, Child and Family Social Work , 9 (3), pp. 295 –304.

Bynner , J. ( 2001 ) ‘British youth transitions in comparative perspective’, Journal of Youth Studies , 4 (1), pp. 5 –23.

Cohen , P. and Ainley, P. ( 2000 ) ‘In the country of the blind? Youth studies and cultural studies in Britain’, Journal of Youth Studies , 3 (1), pp. 79 –95.

Coleman , J. ( 1988 ) ‘Social capital in the creation of human capital’, American Journal of Sociology , 94 , Supplement, S95 –S120, Chicago, University of Chicago.

Coleman , J. and Hendry, L. ( 1999 ) The Nature of Adolescence , 3rd edn, London, Routledge.

Coleman , J. and Schofield, J. ( 2003 ) Key Data on Adolescence , Brighton, Trust for the Study of Adolescence.

Côté , J. ( 2002 ) ‘The role of identity capital in the transition to adulthood: the individualization thesis examined’, Journal of Youth Studies , 5 (2), pp. 117 –34.

Crotty , J. and Crane, A. ( 2004 ) ‘Transitions in environmental risk in a transitional economy: management, capability and community trust in Russia’, Journal of Risk Research , 17 (4), pp. 413 –30.

Daniel , B. and Wassell, S. ( 2002 ) Adolescence: Assessing and Promoting Resilience in Vulnerable Children 3 , London, Jessica Kingsley.

Davis , C. , Tang, C. and Ko, J. ( 2002 ) ‘Assessing the impact of social factors on the mental health of Chinese at risk adolescents in Hong Kong’, British Journal of Social Work , 32 (5), pp. 609 –19.

de Winter , M. and Noom, M. ( 2003 ) ‘Someone who treats you as an ordinary human being … homeless youth examine the quality of professional care’, British Journal of Social Work , 33 (3), pp. 325 –37.

Dean , M. ( 1999 ) Governmentality , London, Sage.

Denscombe , M. ( 2001 ) ‘Uncertain identities: the value of smoking for young adults in late modernity’, British Journal of Sociology , 52 (1), pp. 157 –78.

Department for Education and Skills ( 2003 ) Every Child Matters , Green Paper, London, DfES, available online at: www.dfes.gov.uk/everychildmatters .

Department for Education and Skills ( 2004 ) Improve Your Connexions: The Connexions Customer Satisfaction Survey , London, DfES.

Department for Work and Pensions ( 2004 ) Opportunity for All Sixth Annual Report, 2004 , London, DWP, available online at: www.dwp.gov.uk/ofa.

Department of Health ( 1996 ) Focus on Teenagers , London, DoH.

Department of Health, Department for Education and Employment, and Home Office ( 2000 ) Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families , London, The Stationery Office.

Dingwall , R. ( 1999 ) ‘“Risk society”: the cult of theory and the millennium?’, Social Policy and Administration , 33 (4), pp. 474 –91.

Douglas , M. ( 1966 ) Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo , London, Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Douglas , M. ( 1992 ) Risk and Blame: Essays in Cultural Theory , London, Routledge.

EGRIS: European Group for Integrated Social Research ( 2001 ) ‘Misleading trajectories: transition dilemmas of young adults in Europe’, Journal of Youth Studies , 4 (1), pp. 101 –18.

Elkind , D. ( 1967 ) ‘Egocentrism in adolescence’, Child Development , 38 , pp. 1025 –34.

Eraut , M. ( 1995 ) ‘Schon shock: a case for reframing reflection in action’, Teachers and Teaching , 1 (1), pp. 9 –22.

Erikson , E. ( 1980 ) Identity and Life Cycle , New York, Norton.

Erikson , E. ( 1968 ) Identity, Youth and Crisis , New York, Norton.

ESRC ( 2004 ) ‘ESRC priority network: pathways into and out of crime—risk, resilience and diversity’, ESRC, Network News , Issue 1, January 2004.

ESRC ( 2004 ) Unconscious Effects of Prototypes on Young People’s Health and Behaviour , available online at: www.esrc.ac.uk/esrccontent/news , October 2004.

Evans , K. ( 2002 ) ‘Taking control of their lives? Agency in young adult transitions in England and the new Germany’, Journal of Youth Studies , 5 (3), pp. 245 –69.

Ferguson , H. ( 2001 ) ‘Social work, individualization and life politics’, British Journal of Social Work , 31 (1), pp. 41 –55.

Ferguson , H. ( 2003 ) ‘In defence (and celebration) of individualization and life politics for social work’, British Journal of Social Work , 33 (5), pp. 699 –707.

Forsythe , B. and Jordan, B. ( 2002 ) ‘The Victorian ethical foundations of social work in England: continuity and contradiction’, British Journal of Social Work , 32 (7), pp. 847 –62.

Foucault , M. ( 1991 ) ‘Governmentality’, in Burchell, G., Gordon, C. and Miller, P. (eds), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmental Rationality , Hemel Hempstead, Harvester Wheatsheaf.

France , A. ( 2000 ) ‘Towards a sociological understanding of youth and their risk-taking’, Journal of Youth Studies , 3 (3), pp. 317 –31.

FRANK ( 2004 ) Young People and Drugs Survey , available online at: www.talktofrank.com , August 2004.

Furlong , A. and Cartmel, F. ( 1997 ) Young People and Social Change: Individualisation and Risk in Late Modernity , Buckingham, Open University Press.

Garrett , P. M. ( 2002 ) ‘Yes Minister: reviewing the “Looking After Children” experience and identifying the messages for social work research’, British Journal of Social Work , 32 (7), pp. 831 –46.

Garrett , P. M. ( 2003 ) ‘Swimming with dolphins: the Assessment Framework, New Labour, and new tools for social work with children and families’, British Journal of Social Work , 33 (4), pp. 441 –63.

Garrett , P. M. ( 2003 ) ‘The trouble with Harry: why the “New agenda of life politics” fails to convince’, British Journal of Social Work , 33 (3), pp. 381 –97.

Garrett , P. M. ( 2004 ) ‘More trouble with Harry: a rejoinder in the “life politics” debate’, British Journal of Social Work , 34 (4), pp. 577 –89.

Giddens , A. ( 1991 ) Modernity and Self Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age , Oxford, Polity.

Giddens , A. ( 1999 ) Runaway World , London, Profile Books.

Goldson , B. ( 2000 ) ‘“Children in need” or “young offenders”? Hardening ideology, organizational change and new challenges for social work with children in trouble’, Child and Family Social Work , 5 (3), pp. 255 –65.

Goldson , B. ( 2002 ) ‘New Labour, social justice and children: political calculation and the deserving–undeserving schism’, British Journal of Social Work , 32 (6), pp. 683 –95.

Green , E. , Mitchell, W. and Bunton, R. ( 2000 ) ‘Contextualizing risk and danger: an analysis of young people’s perceptions of risk’, Journal of Youth Studies , 3 (2), pp. 109 –26.

Grotevand , H. and Cooper, C. ( 1998 ) ‘Individuality and connectedness in adolescent development: review and prospects for research on identity, relationships and context’, in Skoe, E. and von der Lippe, A. (eds), Personality Development in Adolescence: A Cross-national and Lifespan Perspective , London, Routledge.

Guardian , The , ‘Today’s youth: anxious, depressed, anti-social’, London, 13 September 2004 .

Heaven , P. ( 1996 ) Adolescent Health , London, Routledge.

Hendry , L. and Kloep, M. ( 1996 ) ‘Is there life beyond “flow”?’, Proceedings of the 5th Biennial Conference of the EARA, University of Liege, May 1996.

Home Office ( 2003 ) Youth Justice: The Next Steps , London, Home Office.

Houston , S. ( 2004 ) ‘Garrett contra Ferguson: a meta-theoretical appraisal of the “rumble in the jungle”’, British Journal of Social Work , 34 (2), pp. 261 –7.

Ingham , R. , Woodcock, A. and Steiner, K. ( 1993 ) ‘The limitations of rational decision-making models as applied to young people’s sexual behaviour’, in Aggleton, P., Davies, P. and Hart, G. (eds), AIDS, Rights, Risk and Reason , London, Falmer Press.

Irwin , C. and Millstein, S. ( 1986 ) ‘Biosocial correlates of risk taking behaviours during adolescence, can the physician intervene?’, Journal of Adolescent Health Care , 7 (6) Supplement, pp. 82S –96S.

Ixer , G. ( 1999 ) ‘No such thing as reflection’, British Journal of Social Work , 29 (4), pp. 513 –27.

Jack , M. ( 1986 ) ‘Personal fable: a potential explanation for risk-taking behaviour in adolescents’, Journal of Pediatric Nurse , 4 (5), pp. 334 –8.

Jessor , R. ( 1984 ) ‘Adolescent development and behavioural health’, in Matarazzo, J., Weiss, J., Herd, J., Miller, N. and Weiss, S. (eds), Behavioural Health: A Handbook of Health and Enhancement and Disease Prevention , New York, John Wiley and Sons.

Jones , G. ( 1995 ) Leaving Home , Buckingham, Open University Press.

Jones , G. and Wallace, C. ( 1990 ) ‘Beyond individualisation: what sort of social change?’, in Chisholm, L., Buchner, P., Kruger, H. and Brown, P. (eds), Childhood, Youth and Social Change: A Comparative Perspective , London, Falmer.

Jordan , B. ( 2004 ) ‘Emancipatory social work? Opportunity or oxymoron’, British Journal of Social Work , 34 (1), pp. 5 –19.

Jordan , B. and Jordan, C. ( 2000 ) Social Work and the Third Way , London, Sage.

Kagan , J. ( 1991 ) ‘Stages in adolescent involvement in drug use’, Science , 190 , pp. 912 –14.

Kelly , P. ( 2000 ) ‘The dangerousness of youth-at-risk: the possibilities of surveillance and intervention in uncertain times’, Journal of Adolescence , 23 (4), pp. 463 –76.

Kelly , P. ( 2000 ) ‘Youth as an artefact of expertise: problematizing the practice of youth studies in an age of uncertainty’, Journal of Youth Studies , 3 (3), pp. 301 –15.

Kelly , P. ( 2003 ) ‘Growing up as risky business? Risks, surveillance and the institutionalized mistrust of youth’, Journal of Youth Studies , 6 (2), pp. 165 –80.

Kohlberg , L. ( 1976 ) ‘Moral stages and moralisation’, in Linkons, T. (ed.), Moral Development and Behaviour , New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Lash , S. ( 1993 ) ‘Reflexive modernisation: the aesthetic dimension’, Theory Culture and Society , 10 , pp. 1 –23.

Lash , S. ( 2000 ) ‘Risk culture’, in Adam, B., Beck, U. and van Loon, J. (eds), The Risk Society and Beyond , London, Sage.

Lave , J. and Wenger, E. ( 1991 ) Informal Situated Learning , Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Lawy , R. ( 2002 ) ‘Risky Stories: youth identities, learning and everyday risk’, Journal of Youth Studies , 5 (4), pp. 407 –23.

Lorenz , W. ( 2000 ) ‘Contentious identities: social work and the search for professional and personal identities’, ESRC Theorising Social Work Research, Seminar 6 , available online at: www.nisw.org.uk/tswr/lorenz.html , March 2000.

Lupton , D. ( 1999 ) Risk , London and New York, Routledge.

Marcia , J. E. ( 1966 ) ‘Development and validation of ego-identity status’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 3 , pp. 551 –8.

Matten , D. ( 2004 ) ‘The impact of the risk society thesis on environmental politics and management in a globalising economy: principles, proficiency, perspectives’, Journal of Risk Research , 7 (4), pp. 377 –98.

Møldrup , C. and Morgall, J. ( 2001 ) ‘Risk society: reconsidered in a drug context’, Health, Risk and Society , 3 (1), pp. 59 –74.

Møldrup , C. , Morgall, J. and Almarsdóttir, A. ( 2002 ) ‘Perceived risk of future drugs: a Danish citizen Delphi’, Health, Risk and Society , 4 (1), pp. 5 –18.

Office of National Statistics ( 2004 ) The Health of Children and Young People , London, ONS.

Parker , H. , Aldridge, J. and Measham, F. ( 1998 ) Illegal Leisure: The Normalisation of Adolescent Recreational Drug Use , London, Routledge.

Parton , N. and O’Byrne, P. ( 2000 ) Constructive Social Work: Towards a New Practice , London, Macmillan and New York, St Martin’s Press.

Parton , N. and O’Byrne, P. ( 2000 ) ‘What is constructive social work?’, Critical Social Work , 1 (2), Fall, available online at: http://www.CriticalSocialWork.com/00-2-what-parton.html.

Pease , B. ( 2002 ) ‘Rethinking empowerment: a postmodern reappraisal for emancipatory practice’, British Journal of Social Work , 32 (2), pp. 135 –47.

Pease , B. and Fook, J. (eds) ( 1999 ) Transforming Social Work Practice: Postmodern Critical Perspectives , Sydney, Allen and Unwin.

Plant , M. and Plant, M. ( 1992 ) Risk-Takers: Alcohol, Drugs, Sex and Youth , London, Routledge.

Putnam , R. ( 2000 ) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community , New York, Simon and Schuster.

Raffo , C. and Reeves, M. ( 2000 ) ‘Youth transitions and social exclusion: developments in social capital theory’, Journal of Youth Studies , 3 (2), pp. 147 –66.

Rose , N. ( 1996 ) ‘Governing “advanced” liberal democracies’, in Barry, A., Osborne, T. and Rose, N. (eds), Foucault and Political Reason: Liberalism, Neo-Liberalism and Rationalities of Government , London, University College London Press.

Rose , N. and Miller, P. ( 1992 ) ‘Political power beyond the state: problematics of government’, Journal of Sociology , 43 (24), pp. 173 –205.

Rutter , M. and Smith, D. (eds) ( 1995 ) Psychological Disorders in Young People: Time Trends and their Causes , London, John Wiley and Sons.

Schoon , I. and Bynner, J. ( 2003 ) ‘Risk and resilience in the life course: implications for interventions and social policies’, Journal of Youth Studies , 6 (1), pp. 21 –31.

Shiner , M. and Newburn, T. ( 1997 ) ‘Definitely, maybe not? The normalisation of recreational drug use amongst young people’, Sociology , 31 (3), pp. 511 –30.

Sinclair , R. , Garnett, L. and Berridge, D. ( 1995 ) Social Work and Assessment with Adolescents , London, National Children’s Bureau.

Smith , D. ( 2003 ) ‘New Labour and youth justice’, Children & Society , 17 (3), pp. 226 –35.

Smith , R. ( 2003 ) Youth Justice: Ideas, Policy and Practice , Cullompton, Willan Publishing.

Social Exclusion Unit ( 1999 ) Bridging the Gap: New Opportunities for 16–18 Year-olds Not in Education, Employment or Training , London, The Stationery Office.

Social Exclusion Unit ( 2000 ) National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal: A Framework for Consultation , London, Cabinet Office.

Social Exclusion Unit ( 2000 ) Report of Policy Action Team 12 on Young People , London, The Stationery Office.

Stead , J. , Lloyd, G. and Kendrick, A. ( 2004 ) ‘Participation or practice innovation: tensions in inter-agency working to address disciplinary exclusion from school’, Children & Society , 18 (1), pp. 42 –52.

Stevens , I. ( 2004 ) ‘Cognitive–behavioural interventions for adolescents in residential child care in Scotland’, Child and Family Social Work , 9 (3), pp. 237 –46.

Strydom , P. ( 2002 ) Risk, Environment and Society: Ongoing Debates, Current Issues and Future Prospects , Buckingham, Open University Press.

Taite , G. ( 1995 ) ‘Shaping the “at risk youth”: risk, governmentality and the Finn Report’, Discourse , 16 , pp. 123 –34.

Taylor , C. ( 2004 ) ‘Underpinning knowledge for child care practice: reconsidering child development theory’, Child and Family Social Work , 9 (3), pp. 225 –36.

Taylor , C. and White, S. ( 2000 ) Practising Reflexivity in Health and Welfare: Making Knowledge , Buckingham, Open University.

Taylor , C. and White, S. ( 2001 ) ‘Knowledge, truth and reflexivity: the problem of judgement in social work’, Journal of Social Work , 1 (1), pp. 37 –59.

Triseliotis , J. , Borland, M., Hill, M. and Lambert, L. ( 1995 ) Teenagers and the Social Work Services , London, HMSO.

Tulloch , J. and Lupton, D. ( 2003 ) Risk and Everyday Life , London, Sage.

Turner , B. ( 2001 ) ‘Risks, rights and regulation: an overview’, Health, Risk and Society , 3 (1), pp. 9 –18.

Wallace , C. and Kovatchevka, S. ( 1998 ) ‘Youth cultures and consumption in Eastern and Western Europe’, Youth and Society , 28 , pp. 189 –214.

White , S. ( 1997 ) ‘Beyond retroduction? Hermeneutics, reflexivity and social work practice’, British Journal of Social Work , 27 (5), pp. 739 –53.

Whyte , B. ( 2004 ) ‘Responding to youth crime in Scotland’, British Journal of Social Work , 34 (3), pp. 395 –411.

Young Minds ( 2004 ) Mental Health Services for Adolescents and Young Adults , available online at: www.youngminds.org.uk/adolescentpolicy .

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

Online ISSN 1468-263X
Print ISSN 0045-3102
Copyright © 2024 British Association of Social Workers
About Oxford Academic
Publish journals with us
University press partners
What we publish
New features
Open access
Institutional account management
Rights and permissions
Get help with access
Accessibility
Advertising
Media enquiries
Oxford University Press
Oxford Languages
University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
Cookie settings
Cookie policy
Privacy policy
Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Risk assessment process and key points to risk identification in virtual interactions

Published: March 2023

Virtual interactions with people that access care and support are here to stay, in one form or another. Where it is appropriate and proportionate to interact with an individual in a way other than face to face, it is necessary to be confident and competent to practice in a way that recognises and works effectively with risk.

This guide will help social care practitioners to understand:

The key principles of how to gather evidence and information, so they are able to identify and assess risks virtually when it is not necessary or appropriate to do so through face-to-face contact.
The importance of being aware that our professional decisions may become more reliant on assumptions or information provided by others, as we may have less ability to observe and draw conclusions from direct observation. However, as with any social care practice, it is essential that we are able to defend any decision made with the evidence that underpins it.
That regardless of the method of interaction we should always be mindful of situations that present risk and should try to gather as much information as possible about the individuals’ circumstances to ensure any risks are identified and looked at properly.
The importance of clearly documenting the entirety of the risk assessment process and particularly evidence associated with risk.
“Critical, reflexive and careful judgement … with the fully considered evidence of incomplete knowledge so that you can defend and justify your assessments, plans and interventions” (Cooper, 2011).

If the adult lacks capacity, some of the statements below will not apply, and decisions and agreements will be made with as much involvement as possible from the adult but not solely with them.

Risk assessment as a process

Risk assessment is an important process in adult social care as we work with individuals to enable them to achieve the outcomes that matter to them and promote their individual wellbeing.

The risk assessment process has four distinctive and sequential stages, and social care practitioners should go through each of them with the individual.

Understanding the person’s circumstances
Identifying risks
Assessing impact and likelihood of risks
Managing risks – risk enablement and planning

This framework is evident in a study undertaken by Clarke et al. (2011) which outlined a four-stage process for exploring risk with individuals and families living with dementia. However, this further guidance is equally as applicable for working with all individuals:

Identify risks in the life-context of the individual and their circumstances (and therefore impact on quality of life and individual wellbeing).
Identify risk perspectives from all the people involved.
Identify weighting of risks (to establish high and low risk concerns, impact on emotional, social and psychological wellbeing).
Identify current and past strategies for managing risks.

When we work with individuals during the risk assessment process it is important to remember that a person’s ability to engage can fluctuate either as a result of a cognitive impairment of the mind or brain or due to physical or emotional difficulties. In such circumstances it will be necessary to arrange conversations at times that are appropriate for them and/or provide additional support if required such as:

Appropriate Person
Independent Advocate, or
Independent Mental Capacity Act Advocate.

What is risk?

Simply put, risk is:

The probability that an event will occur with beneficial or harmful outcomes for a particular person or others with whom they come into contact.
A product of the likelihood that an event will occur and the impact that it will have if it does occur.

The four stages of risk assessment as a process

Understanding the person’s circumstances (stage 1).

Risk is part of everyday life and “people with disabilities, both mental and physical, have the same human rights as the rest of the human race. It may be that those rights have sometimes to be limited or restricted because of their disabilities, but the starting point should be the same as that for everyone else” (Lady Hale, 2014).

When we work with individuals requiring support from Adult Social Care, we do so to promote choice and control for which there are likely to be elements of risk present. However, our practice is underpinned by strengths-based principles which recognises strengths, capabilities and potentials for self-directed support towards goals and outcomes that matters to the individual.

It may therefore be necessary and/or beneficial for some risk to be present but in such circumstances the decision should be made through,

Weighing up the potential benefits and harms of exercising one choice of action over another. This means identifying the potential risks involved, and developing plans and actions that reflect the positive potentials and stated priorities of the service user. It involves using available resources and support to achieve desired outcomes, and to minimise potential harmful outcomes.

Read “principles of practice” for some further guidance to help you understand the person’s circumstances.

Identifying risks and protective factors (Stage 2)

A social care practitioner’s role is to support an individual to identify, define and explore the beneficial or harmful outcomes of the identified activity/decision with the individual. This is to enable a thorough exploration which will allow consideration of the likelihood and impact and promote their ability to live the life they want and do the things that are important to them as independently as possible. Our role is not to stop people doing things but to trust people to make decisions and direct their own support, with help where they need and want it.

The first step of the risk assessment process is to jointly work with the individual, with or without the support of another person (for example an appropriate individual or independent advocate), to enable us to understand:

what the activity means to them
why is it important to them and for them
what impact being able/unable to undertake the activity will have on their individual wellbeing.

It is important that when we engage in conversations, we begin from a position of strength, focusing on what is strong for the individual and not on what is wrong with the decisions they are wanting to make. We can learn from the principles of appreciative inquiry and rather than seeing the situation as a problem to be solved, consider it as a mystery to be embraced, utilising strengths, rather than seeking to overcome or minimise the weaknesses. We can, with an open mind, seek to explore and discover moments of strengths in the individual’s life, personal qualities and the networks around them. We can be open to seeing new potential and possibilities using the collective knowledge of the social care practitioner and the individual to whom the assessment belongs.

Once you have established a baseline understanding of the persons circumstances from their perspective, it is important to work with them to identify both the potential benefits and the potential harms of a given action, decision, behaviour, etc.

This enables us to support the individual to explore the risks that they are facing, or are likely to face, and the impact of the activity on them or others, now or in the future.

Working virtually with an individual will place a greater reliance upon the questions we ask in order to establish a baseline understanding of the person and find the answers to potential benefits or harms as we cannot use our other senses such as seeing for ourselves.

From the available information and initial contact with the individual, it should be possible to gauge a level of insight as to the potential harmful outcomes, likelihood of occurrence and potential impact. We should use this to determine which method of interaction is required, for example it is necessary to visit the individual in person or it is appropriate to, at least, start the risk assessment process virtually. It is important that we record our rationale for the chosen method(s) of interaction.

Pause for thought: Case study – about Amitesh

Amitesh is a 28-year-old male who lives with an acquired brain injury and limited use of his right side. He moved from residential care to supported living one year ago. He is unable to access the community without support which is authorised by a community Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard. (DOLiC)

You have arranged to review Amitesh’s care and support plan with his support worker and Mum, who is acting as his Appropriate Person. The appointment will be via video call. He has explained that he wants to discuss how he will be able go to the local supermarket without support.

Thinking about the first two steps of the risk process, what questions do you think you need to ask? SCIE will share its thoughts below to offer further guidance to shape your question creation.

SCIE’s thoughts

It is important that the conversations that we have enable us to evidence some key points, such as:

What is it that is trying to be achieved and why?
How will it be achieved and why will it be done this way?
What are the potential benefits of the action being considered? To self, to others, from others, etc.
What could go wrong? – what are the risks to self, to others, from others etc.

The answer to these questions:

Must be seen from the individual’s point of view, though we will support the individual in exploring and understanding all the potential benefits and harms.
Should include the individual wishes and aspirations.
May include potential benefits for others but must include any potential harm to others.

Potential prompts to go through with the individual are:

What is the good thing about doing this?
What will I get out of it?
What could go wrong if I don’t do it?
What could go wrong if I do it?

With support, Amitesh was able to identify that it was important for him to go to the shops by himself to buy chocolate. He wants to do this as his friends who lived around him did so and not being able to do it made him feel sad and frustrated and it made him feel like a child.

Being able to go to the shop when he wanted and by himself would help him feel independent and he could use the communal mobility scooter to help him get there because he cannot walk very far.

Amitesh identified that it had been over 10 years since he had been out in the community without support, that he might get lost on the way to the shop and/or forget what he had gone to the shop for or not know if he has been given the right change.

To explore further the concern around not getting the right change and to ascertain if it is a risk, Amitesh was asked if he has any money close by and if he knows the value of the notes and coins that he had; simple questions were asked such as if he paid with a £5 note would he expect any change if the item cost 50 pence?

A balance sheet for supporting exploration of risk, protective factors and options

During the conversation we need to be able explore ways in which Amitesh could achieve the outcome he wishes to achieve, and a balance sheet tool may be a useful way of doing this.

The format of such a tool is not important but the detail which we add to it is key. A balance sheet:

Provides an opportunity to work through and identify possible options for the person to achieve their desired outcome while minimising risk, where possible.
Enables recording of the evidence gathered to demonstrate the advantages and disadvantages of the considered option which will be used to make decisions.
Supports the analysis as to why it is or is not a realistic option, with reference to the facts that resulted in the decisions made.
Enables the process to be open and transparent with the people we work with.

Activity: Getting to the shop

It may be necessary to have more than one interaction with Amitesh, to ascertain all the risks involved in relation to the decision to be made. These interactions can be using one or different methods.

The important thing is that we can evidence and define with clarity what the risks are from the perspective of the individual, the social care practitioner and any others as this will support the next stages or be affected by the decision. It is not possible to consider the impact and likelihood of a situation or take steps to manage it if we cannot define what the risk is first.

Assessing risks: impact and likelihood (stage 3)

Once the risk has been clearly defined and the potential beneficial and harmful effects identified, we will explore with the individual the impact and likelihood of each of the potential benefits and harms identified to assess the risk.

This stage is not:

a method to prevent a person to achieve the outcomes that they would choose
an opportunity to focus on the problem/s and things that are perceived to be a risk.

As a social care practitioner is not our responsibility to take the risk away. At this stage we should:

Support the individual with their unique strengths, abilities and aspirations to make decisions that matter to them.
Support the individual in understanding the likelihood and impact of all the identified potential benefits and harms, what is important for them alongside what is important to them and why.

It is essential that there is an evidenced based analysis of the severity and likelihood of harm which could arise.

When we assess risk, it is necessary to explore:

How likely is this to occur? This should be proportionate to the potential consequences specified, and must be based on good information and evidence and consider the same factors – is the information up to date? Is it relevant? Can it be evidenced? What are the protective factors which could reduce the likelihood of the occurrence? Consider the strengths of the person’s current situation, the environment and what their family/friends/other support network are or can contribute. What additional actions would promote benefit and reduce the likelihood of the occurrence, for example the use of assistive technology, interventions to improve ability of the individual, maximising existing support networks?
If something went wrong, what would the severity of the impact be? It is important to consider both a best-case and worst-case scenario, e.g. death, serious injury, admission to hospital, loss of accommodation. If it works, what is the level of benefit of the impact? It is important to consider equally the potential negative consequences and the potential benefits What are the protective factors which could reduce the severity of the impact? What additional actions would promote the benefit and reduce the severity of the impact, for example the use of assistive technology, interventions to improve ability of the individual, maximising existing support networks.

Thinking about the impact and likelihood that of the risk process, what questions do you think you need to ask based on the information you have?

It is important to have conversations that will enable us to evidence some key points, such as:

The likelihood of risk (degree of intent; immediacy/frequency of its occurrence or re-occurrence; timing: do different times of day or different days elevate or reduce the risk?).
The severity of risk (i.e. the impact it could have if it occurs).
Has something like this happened before, what are the similarities and the differences, how were they managed and to what end? Use your knowledge and experience to explore if previous solutions could help in this case.
What’s the worst that could happen? For whom?
What’s the best that could happen? For whom?
What could happen if we don’t support the person to take the risk?
Must be seen from individual’s point of view, though we will support the individual in exploring and understanding the likelihood and severity of the decision.

An example of a risk assessment for Amitesh

Low, medium, high

Unlikely, likely, very likely

What is the decision or choice to be made? Is it safe for Amitesh to go to the shops alone?

What are the potential benefits?

Amitesh can be independent in going to the shops, his confidence will grow.
Amitesh can feel like an adult and make his own decisions about when he goes to the shop.
Amitesh will grow as an individual.
It is something important for Amitesh and which he aspires to achieve.
It is very likely that these benefits could be achieved.
Amitesh’s confidence could be increased, and he may even be able to take a next step within time.
Staff will be available to support other residents.

What are the potential harms?

Amitesh could get lost. This could stress him out and/or make him vulnerable to other risks.
Amitesh may forget what he went to the shop for and get stressed or lose his way.
Amitesh may not get the right change and lose some money.
It is very likely that it will go wrong as Amitesh has not been out without support for 10 years and does not have the necessary skills to be able to do so at this time.
It is very likely that Amitesh may get lost.
It is very likely that Amitesh may not get the right change.
The severity could be high as Amitesh may get scared about being lost and when he is overwhelmed his ability to cope with a situation is reduced.
Amitesh lives in a supported living complex with staff on site 24 hours.
Amitesh has a telephone and has the phone number of the complex on speed dial which he is able to use.
Amitesh has been using the local community, with support, and so may have recollection of important landmarks which will help him to return home.
Supporting Amitesh to undertake a period of travel training to enable him to develop skills required to access the shop independently.
Not taking too much money to the shop.
Preparing a shopping list with staff in advance of going to the shop.
Using a phone to contact staff if he gets lost.
Using a phone to check in with staff when he has got his change.
If staff work with Amitesh in addressing the factors that increase the risk, the risk will be properly managed.
If staff conclude that they can’t provide Amitesh with the necessary skills and support to be able to address the factors that increase the risk, a decision should be made as to whether the remaining risk should be taken.

Stages one through three of the risk assessment process will enable the social care practitioner, regardless of method in which the intervention is undertaken, to recognise and work effectively with risk. It will enable the social care practitioner to arrive at a decision which should include the following narrative elements:

A statement of the decision.
The reasons for the decision.
A description of the main alternatives.
Reasons why the alternative may not be the best option or why the alternative may be the best option.

When we are working virtually with individuals to explore risk it is important that we are confident with the information we have been able to gather to enable us to make an informed and defendable decision:

Decisions that will withstand the harsh scrutiny of hindsight bias in the event of a risk failure … informed, balanced, proportionate and just risk decisions.

Managing risks: risk enablement and positive risk-taking (stage 4)

Risk is part of everyday life and risk management is not about trying to eliminate risk but managing risks to maximise people’s choice and control over their lives. It is about weighing up the options and utilising the available resources to achieve the desired outcome. It is “not negligent ignorance of the potential risks … it is usually a very carefully thought-out strategy for managing a specific situation or set of circumstances” (Morgan, 2004).

Not all risk can be reduced or mitigated, but all can be managed if they have been properly identified and assessed. On some occasions the management of risks entail reduction or mitigation.

Individual choice* in risk enablement: It is the adult and/or carer’s right to make choices and take risks once they understand the information available and are aware of the risks.

Risk enablement: Risk enablement involves supporting adults and/or carers to identify and assess risks and then supporting them to take the risk they choose.

* unless assessed to lack capacity.

Key aims of positive risk-taking:

Some of the key aims of positive risk-taking are:

Empowering people
Working in partnership with adults and/or carers
Developing trusting working relationships
Supporting people to access opportunities and take worthwhile chances
Learning from experiences
Understanding consequences of different choices/actions
Sometimes tolerating short-term risk for long-term gain
Making decisions based on accurate/available choices.

Once the risks have been identified and assessed, the next step is to agree with the individual how the risks are going to be managed.

The goal of risk management

The goal of the management of risk is to develop contingency actions for any predicted pitfalls, in a way which improve the quality of life of the person, to promote their independence or to stop these deteriorating if possible. Please note that this may be just to make the individual aware of the potential consequences of the risk.

To manage risk effectively, it is important to:

Develop and implement the action plan agreed with the adult/carer.
Have clear monitoring and reviewing systems in place if appropriate.
Ensure accurate documentation and sharing of risk assessment/action plan with relevant partners.
Be ready to respond to the consequences.
Agree risks owners – who takes responsibility.

Risk action plan

A risk action plan should include:

What actions have been agreed?
How the actions will be carried out and their significance to success?

Who will be responsible for them?

What is the time frame? Bear in mind that different aspects might have different time frames.

How will good communication be ensured?

What could go wrong – and how to overcome?
What could go well – and how to build onto it?
Review plan and agree timescale.

Amitesh wished to be able to go to the shop without a support worker or his mum so that he could:

be like his friends
be more spontaneous about his day
have his favourite chocolate bar when he wanted and not just when he had a scheduled shopping session
have greater independence.

The assessment of risk concluded:

There was a probability of a harmful outcome for Amitesh if he was to go to the shop alone as he could get lost, forget what he was going to the shop for and not be given the right change.
The likelihood of the harmful outcome was high due to him having had protective oversight while accessing the community for the past 10 years.
The impact if something goes wrong could be high as he is not able to cope with his emotions when he is feeling overwhelmed.

There are additional actions which would promote his ability to achieve his goal.

Using the information available what might the risk action plan include?

The Care Act 2014 is very clear that the starting point for care and support planning is the assumption that an individual can plan for themselves. This should be extended to the development of a risk action plan as should the notion that the plan is written in the first person to make it clear that it is the individual who owns it as it is there to support the individual to live a safer life.

Where possible, principles of co-production should be applied to support the individual to have as much control as possible over the choices that they can make.

What actions have been agreed

I will be supported to try and learn how to get to the shop by myself.
I will use pictures to build my shopping list so that I do not forget what I am going to the shop for.
I will work with my support worker to learn about money and to try and understand how much money I will need for my shopping list and how much change I will get.

How the actions will be carried out and their significance to success

I will work with my support worker for three hours each week.
Support worker will plan the session with Amitesh.
Support worker will notify social care practitioner of session plan and outcome.
Support worker.
Social care practitioner.

What is the time frame, bearing in mind that different aspects might have different time frames?

I will work with my support worker until Christmas (three months).
Review monthly.
Weekly catch-up scheduled for use as required.
My support worker will let the social care practitioner know how each session has gone.
I can call the social care practitioner if I want to.

What could go wrong, and how to overcome it?

The pace of activity may be overwhelming for Amitesh. Usual mood chart to be implemented before each session to enable support worker/Amitesh to gauge pitch of session and what the session will look like.
Amitesh to be supported to use mood chart to explain feelings if it appears that he is becoming overwhelmed.
Amitesh to be given opportunity to choose another activity to undertake if he is feeling overwhelmed.

Review plan and agree timescale

Four-weekly.

How to work with risk virtually

During face-to-face interactions, we use our observation skills, amongst others, to understand any potential risks for the individual. Working virtually could reduce the opportunity to observe certain circumstances, behaviours, reactions, the non-verbal communication, the ability to see the unseen which could impact on evidence-based decision making.

Please note that whereas we have tried to include a wide range of risk factors there may be others not listed.

Working virtually places greater reliance on the use of effective strengths-based conversations, underpinned by open-ended questions and establishing meaningful relationships . This will enable a two-way exploration of the presence of risk, risk identification, risk assessment, and risk management to explore how best to support the individual to achieve the outcomes that are important to them.

From the available information and initial contact with the individual, it should be possible to gauge a level of insight as to the potential risks. We should use this to determine which method of interaction is more suitable for example it is necessary to visit with the individual in person? Or is it appropriate to at least start the risk assessment process virtually?

Important considerations

If we are working with people virtually, we will:

Need to use this information as a starting point to consider the conversations and the information we need to gather from the individual.
Need to review historical/available information so that we are aware of what gaps in evidence we have.
Consider what existing information needs to be checked out so that we do not make assumptions that the current circumstances are the same.
Need to ensure that any sharing of data, via email for example, is done so in accordance with sharing of information and joint working protocols to prevent data breaches in line with the Data Protection Act 2018 .
Where possible always seek permission from the individual before requesting and sharing information but if it is necessary to facilitate the provision to the individual of health or social care services, section 2(3) of the Health and Social Care (Safety and Quality) Act 2015 will limit repercussion.

If the adult lacks capacity, some statements will not apply, and decisions and agreements will be made with as much involvement as possible from the adult but not solely with them.

Please note that you can find information on Safeguarding risks with adults in further reading .

What information can help social care practitioners in the identification and/or assessment of different types of risks when working virtually?

The below information is intended to support social care practitioners to ascertain which questions could be asked and/or considered to supplement the lack of opportunity to gather intelligence through observation when undertaking virtual interactions.

Please note that although we have included a wide range of risk factors, the list is not exhaustive.

The below indicators of higher risk should not be used to make assumptions, but to prompt questions and source evidence. The risks considered in this resource are those of:

Personal/self-neglect
Incontinence
Environmental neglect

Carer breakdown

Social isolation.

Examples of types of risks and factors that could increase the level of risk

Factors to increase risk of falls.

Medical conditions
Mobility, balance and gait
Nutritional deficiencies
Impaired cognition
Visual impairments
Foot problems
Environmental hazards

What would be useful to know?

Has anything changed?
From when, why?
Permanent or temporary?
Previous history of falls over a 12-month period.
What are the known side effects of medication being taken?

How might you find out if your interaction is not face-to-face?

From the individual
From family/friends
From paid professionals, i.e. carers/personal assistants
From health professionals
From historical notes

Personal and self-neglect:

Factors to increase risk of self-neglect.

Mental health
Social circumstance

Signs of self-neglect

Mouth hygiene
Unkempt general appearance
Visible dirt
Sweating and body odour (especially sweat patches)
Skin – spots
Becoming ill often
Not cleaning the toilet
Not getting rid of rubbish
Not washing clothes and bedding frequently
Not storing food properly
What is the person’s own perspective on their self-care?
What are the hazards to wellbeing, mental and physical health?
Are they able to seek help or access services to support them?
Do they have income to resource their ability to care for themselves?

Malnutrition:

Factors to increase risk of malnutrition.

Mental health conditions

Signs of malnutrition

Little or no appetite, a lack of interest in eating and drinking*
Weight loss*
Low energy and feeling tired
Poor concentration
Reduced physical ability
Getting ill often and taking a long time to recover
Wounds taking a long time to heal
Feeling cold most of the time

*Can be difficult to determine if the person isn’t open and you are not seeing them face-to-face; therefore important to ask the question if other signs are flagged.

Any known mental health conditions such as dementia, depression or eating disorders?
Is there any social isolation?
Is there enough income into the house, has anything recently changed?
Are there any physical limitations, is this a recent change?
Are there any long-term health conditions which affect appetite?
Any issues with ability to swallow (i.e. dysphagia)?
Any issues with ability to chew (i.e. dental issues)?

Environmental neglect and/or hoarding:

Factors to increase risk, signs of environmental neglect/hoarding.

Unusually large number of items on furniture and/or on the floor
Keep or collect items that may have little or no monetary value, such as junk mail and carrier bags
Find it hard to categorise or organise items
Have difficulties making decisions
Struggle to manage everyday tasks, such as cooking, cleaning and paying bills
Have poor relationships with family and/or friends
Suspicion of other people touching items
Obsessive thoughts and actions: fear of running out of an item or of needing it in the future; checking bins for accidentally discarded objects
People who live alone, are unmarried
Have had a deprived childhood (i.e. with lack of material objects)
Has there been a change in income availability?
Are there any long-term health conditions which is preventing them for keeping their home to their level of normal?
Many people with hoarding disorders also experience other mental disorders, including depression, anxiety disorders, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder or alcohol use disorder

What factors increase the risk of carer breakdown?:

Factors to increase risk of carer breakdown.

Role confusion
Unrealistic expectations
Lack of control
Unreasonable demands

Signs of carer breakdown

Anxiety, depression, irritability
Feeling tired and run down
Difficulty sleeping
Overreacting to minor nuisances
New or worsening health problems
Trouble concentrating and relaxing
Feeling increasingly resentful and impatient
Drinking, smoking, or eating more
Neglecting own needs and responsibilities
Cutting back on leisure activities
Withdrawal from friends and family
Carer’s life revolves around caregiving, but it gives them little satisfaction
Feeling helpless and hopeless
Is this a new behaviour?
When did it start?
Do they find they are irritated, angry or snappy?
Do they feel emotional, are they anxious, worried, stressed?
Have their food habits changed?
Are they finding other ways to cope such as drinking or smoking more often?
How well are they sleeping?
How much energy do they have?
How is their health?

Credit: 10 symptoms of carer stress – and how to beat them (Live Better With).

What factors increase the risk of social isolation?

Factors to increase risk of social isolation.

Living alone
Limited finances
Impaired mobility
No family close by
Sexual orientation issues
Transportation challenges
Divorced, separated, or widowed
Inability to remain physically and mentally active
Lack of access and inequality due to rural living or being part of a marginalised group
Poor health and wellbeing including untreated hearing loss, frailty, substance abuse and poor mental health, including depression
Societal barriers such as ageism and lack of opportunities for older adults to engage and contribute
Unemployment
Lack of an adequate social support network
Bereavement
Domestic violence
Some mild forms of autism, such as Asperger’s Syndrome
Dementia and Alzheimer’s

Signs of social isolation

Deep boredom, general lack of interest and withdrawal
Losing interest in personal hygiene
Poor eating and nutrition
Significant disrepair, clutter and hoarding in the house
Strong difficulty in connecting with others in a non-superficial way
Not having close friends, just mainly acquaintances or casual friends
Low self-esteem and negative feelings of self-doubt
When you try to connect or reach out, it’s not reciprocated, and you’re not seen or heard
Leaving the house feels like stepping into the scary unknown
Lack of motivation to arrange any calls or meetings

When exploring the suggestions, consider:

Other risks

There are other risks that social care practitioners should find out about, such as: cognitive deterioration, risk of hospital admission, risk of not taking prescribed medication, damage to equipment, lack of access to technology or the necessary skills need to use it effectively which should be addressed in line with the Equality Act (2010) .

Gather as much evidence as possible through questions, asking for descriptions, examples of behaviours, etc.
Ensure you go through the risk process stage-by-stage jointly with the adult and/or carer, if they have capacity.
Record appropriately the existing risks, their potential benefits and/or harms, their assessment and how they will be managed, including if the adult and/or carer is taking responsibility – if there is capacity – of the potential harms to themselves.
Ensure you have a person-centred and risk enabler approach.

Don’t:

Make assumptions – the existence of a risk factor or indicator does not mean there is a risk.
Allow your threshold for risk to draw you to conclusions.
Underestimate the potential benefits of taking a risk.

Clarke, C.L., Wilkinson, H., Keady, J. & Gibb, C.E. (2011) Risk assessment and management for living well with Dementia, Jessica Kingsley Publishers

Cooper, B. (2011) ‘Criticality and reflexivity: best practice in uncertain environments’, in Seden, J., Matthews, S., McCormick, M. and Morgan, A. (eds) Professional Development in Social Work: Complex Issues in Practice, London, Routledge, pp. 17-23

Kemshall, H. (2009), Working with sex offenders in a climate of public blame and anxiety: How to make defensible decisions for risk, Journal of Sexual Aggression, 15:3. 331-343

Morgan, S. (2004) ‘Positive risk-taking: an idea whose time has come’ Health Care Risk Report, 10(10), pp.18-19

Personal hygiene

Dignity in care: Personal hygiene (video) (SCIE, 2015)
Social workers must address service users’ poor hygiene (Community Care, 2011)
Are you at risk of falling? (NHS England, 2018)
Falls – risk assessment (NICE, 2019)
What are the main risk factors for falls amongst older people and what are the most effective interventions to prevent these falls? (WHO (Europe), 2004)

Malnutrition

Assessing nutritional risk (Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, 2016)
Malnutrition: What you need to know (Medical News Today)
10 symptoms of carer stress – and how to beat them (LiveBetterWith, 2020)
Caregiver burnout (Cleveland Clinic, 2019)
Care stress and burnout (Helpguide, 2020)

Social isolation

Causes of social isolation in elderly adults (Griswold Home Care, 2020)
Do you recognise the early signs of social isolation? (Mort, A)
Recognising the signs of isolation (Where You Live Matters)
Signs and symptoms of chronic loneliness (Cigna)
Social isolation: symptoms and signs (MedicineNet)
Quiz – signs of social isolation (UCLA Loneliness scale)

Hoarding and environmental neglect

Clinical assessments for hoarding (International OCD Foundation)
Hoarding disorder (NHS England, 2018)
Hoarding: The basics (Anxiety and Depression Association of America)
Professional practice note: Hoarding and how to approach it, guidance for Environmental Health Officers and others (Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, 2004)
What is hoarding disorder? (American Psychiatric Association, 2017)

Safeguarding

COVID-19 and safeguarding adults: frequently asked questions (LGA and ADASS, 2020)
Guidance for safeguarding adults during Covid-19 pandemic: addendum: safeguarding adults in placements (BASW, 2020)
Professional practice guidance for safeguarding adults during COVID-19 pandemic (BASW, 2020)

Self-neglect

Risk assessment and management of patients whom self-neglect: a ‘grey area’ for mental health workers (Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing. Volume 10, Issue 3, pages 287–296, June 2003)
Self-neglect at a glance (SCIE, 2018)

Risk Assessment In Social Work Essay

The sample essay on Risk Assessment In Social Work Essay deals with a framework of research-based facts, approaches and arguments concerning this theme. To see the essay’s introduction, body paragraphs and conclusion, read on.

Hazard can be described as a ‘hazard, or a chance/likelihood of a loss or a peculiar event to happen ‘ ( Collins, 2012 ) , which can look as a great uncertainness in relation to societal work when step ining in people ‘s lives. Over the old ages this has been more formalistic by statistical chance and structured appraisal tools to steer professionals.

Hazard across the continuum of societal work can be placed into two general classs, those hazards that people pose to themselves or others and those hazards which people are exposed to ( Kemshall, 2007 ) . Hazard taking and direction demands to be balanced between the uncertainness of unneeded injury and dangers that worker and service user may be exposed to. The right to protection and the right to take hazards necessitate to be exhaustively addressed and considered, this in its ain right will foreground many ethical quandary.

Intervention must be justified ; on the other manus society has a responsibility to guarantee kids are non exposed to opprobrious state of affairss. Pull offing hazard should be an chance to besides seek or increase positive results, non merely to avoid danger but to cut down the odds against it ( Calder, 2008 Care Council of Wales, 2002, 4, Corby, 2001 ) .

Risk Assessment Social Work

There appears to be no definite account of hazard or hazard appraisal in societal work and whether it refers to merely negative or harmful results, the balance of good against bad results or whether it even includes the possibility of positive events ( Calder, 2008 ) .

Proficient in: Risk Management

“ Amazing writer! I am really satisfied with her work. An excellent price as well. ”

Hazard appears to go around around the construct of danger and possible injury and is non merely related to service users but professional and organizational pattern. Measuring hazard requires intervention in household life and the professional demands to be painstaking of how this is managed in respects to how they engage with service users ( Calder, 2008, CCW, 2002, 1-3 ) .

The two chief principals of the Children Act, 1989 are to protect kids from important injury and to guarantee and advance their long term public assistance. The Children Act 1989 introduced the construct of important injury as a threshold for statutory organic structures to step in in household life, advancing the best involvements of the kid. Local Governments have a responsibility to guarantee that kids and immature people are protected from important injury and to safeguard and advance the public assistance of the kid that may necessitate aid and back up beyond that of normal mainstream services ( Scie, 2005 ) . Measuring and safeguarding kids from important injury is a major function in societal work but it can be hard to measure hazard to a high grade of truth as factors are mostly cumulative and research has shown that it can be hard to expect long term results ( Calder, 2008, Scie, 2005 ) . ‘Risk is besides dependent on the state of affairs ; one definition does non suit all ‘ ( Scie, 2005, p21 ) .

Corby, ( 1996 ) suggested that there are three facets to put on the line appraisal in kid protection. These are preventive, fact-finding and continuance hazard appraisal ( Coulshed & A ; Orme, 2006, Kenshall & A ; Pritchard, 2001 ) . Preventive hazard appraisal is considered before any engagement by bureaus takes topographic point and may act upon the determination whether to step in or non. Preventive hazard appraisal is based on declarative factors which inform opinions ( grounds based pattern ) ( Coulshed & A ; Orme, 2006, Webb, 2006 ) . Early work by Browne & A ; Saqi ( 1998 ) cited in Kenshall & A ; Pritchard ( 2001 ) gave indexs of prognostic factors, for illustration: history of household force, history of mental unwellness, drug or intoxicant maltreatment, parent abused or neglected as a kid and research on these affairs will be used assess the likely cause or result or act upon the manner in which the professional intervenes. A unfavorable judgment of this manner of working is that it can take away from the professional liberty in determination devising. Social workers should be cognizant and inform themselves of available grounds as good pattern but should be able balance this in each single state of affairs ( Coulshed & A ; Orme, 2006, Kenshall & A ; Pritchard, 2001 ) . This manner of pattern can foreground ethical issues for the worker by agencies of know aparting people because of past events or by factors that are out of their control, the danger is that non-abusers could be identified as maltreaters. Social workers may besides step in when there is no grounds of maltreatment which can be seen as intrusive and demonstrates the importance of equilibrating rights and duties ( Coulshed & A ; Orme, 2006 CCW, 2002, Webb, 2006 ) .

Fact-finding hazard appraisal can besides be known as an initial appraisal and is normally brought to the attending of societal services sections by person who has expressed concerns, this possibly another professional or a member of the populace. These are normally dealt by working collaboratively with other bureaus in peculiar to child protection and will about ever involve the Police, G.P/Health Visitor and instruction. The societal worker will be required to utilize the Framework for Assessment which provides a systematic manner of recording and analyzing information about the kid and its household. The worker would besides mention to the All Wales Child Protection Procedures ( WAG, 2008 ) when there are concerns sing kid protection. Troubles can originate when working in a multi-agency partnership as each bureau may hold their ain docket or outlooks of results. This can be apparent when working in instances where domestic force is present and the designation of the hazard that the kids are perchance being exposed to being emotional and physical injury. The Police may be of the sentiment that the kids should be removed from the state of affairs instantly but the societal worker may experience that it is better to work with the female parent and perchance the father/partner in deciding the issues but besides guaranting the safety of all concerned. This may be done as a kid in demand or child protection depending on the badness of the maltreatment. Again this demonstrates the complex undertaking by societal workers of equilibrating the hazard against the rights of those involved. Social workers have the responsibility to see the rights of those involved for illustration the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child ( UNCRC, 1989 ) Article 19, provinces that a kid has the right to protection from maltreatment and disregard. Besides Article 8 of The Human Rights Act 1998 states the right to esteem for household life ( Coulshed & A ; Orme, 2006, Cree & A ; Wallace, 2005 ) .

Continuance hazard appraisal may be considered during long term intercessions whereby for illustration a kid possibly returning to the attention of their parents after a period of separation due to put on the line concerns. Where identifiable hazard has been discovered appraisals need to be made at regular intervals with the focal point being on hazard decrease instead than hazard riddance ( Corby, 1996, Coulshed & A ; Orme, 2006 ) . Continuation hazard appraisal is about equilibrating the hazards of intercession against non-intervention. Evaluation of the original concerns need to be considered and alterations that have occurred acknowledged. The societal worker will so hold to measure whether the alterations made have had a positive or negative influence on the state of affairs or made no difference at all ( Coulshed & A ; Orme, 2006 ) .

In measuring hazard societal workers need to see how power and cognition can act upon determinations that are made. Professionals have the power to take action to protect others, have the entree and cognition of resources on offer and the cognition of theories which may construe behavior and label persons. Using these to label or pigeonhole an person is in itself an maltreatment of power ( Coulshed & A ; Orme, 2006 ) . Today policy promotes the demand for practicians to be sensitive and informed of the diverseness of people ‘s background, taking into consideration their race, civilization and beliefs. A holistic appraisal of a household should include this as criterion and it is of import to recognize the different attacks and life styles and this should reflect the types of intercession that can be provided for multi-cultural communities ( Coulshed & A ; Orme, 2006, CCW, 2002 1.6, Milner & A ; O’Bryne, 2009, ) .

Cite this page

Risk Assessment In Social Work Essay. (2019, Dec 07). Retrieved from https://paperap.com/paper-on-assessing-risk-in-social-work-social-work-essay/

"Risk Assessment In Social Work Essay." PaperAp.com , 7 Dec 2019, https://paperap.com/paper-on-assessing-risk-in-social-work-social-work-essay/

PaperAp.com. (2019). Risk Assessment In Social Work Essay . [Online]. Available at: https://paperap.com/paper-on-assessing-risk-in-social-work-social-work-essay/ [Accessed: 14 May. 2024]

"Risk Assessment In Social Work Essay." PaperAp.com, Dec 07, 2019. Accessed May 14, 2024. https://paperap.com/paper-on-assessing-risk-in-social-work-social-work-essay/

"Risk Assessment In Social Work Essay," PaperAp.com , 07-Dec-2019. [Online]. Available: https://paperap.com/paper-on-assessing-risk-in-social-work-social-work-essay/. [Accessed: 14-May-2024]

PaperAp.com. (2019). Risk Assessment In Social Work Essay . [Online]. Available at: https://paperap.com/paper-on-assessing-risk-in-social-work-social-work-essay/ [Accessed: 14-May-2024]

A Comparison of the Missouri Risk Assessment and the Washington Risk Assessment Pages: 5 (1371 words)
Social Work Social Policy And Social Welfare Social Work Essay Pages: 10 (2786 words)
Risk Assessment In Health And Social Care Essay Pages: 2 (353 words)
Individual And Family Assessment Case Study Social Work Essay Pages: 9 (2426 words)
An Introduction To Social Work Practice Social Work Essay Pages: 12 (3494 words)
Social Work Knowledge And Skills Analysis Social Work Essay Pages: 8 (2369 words)
Looking At Out Expectations Of Social Work Social Work Essay Pages: 9 (2576 words)
Advantages Of Environmental Risk Assessment Pages: 5 (1404 words)
Thorpe Park Risk Assessment Pages: 7 (1821 words)
Risk Assessment Using Bow-Tie Tool in Cement Industry Pages: 4 (1053 words)

British Social Work: Risk Assessment and Management Essay

Introduction.

This study paper looks at British social work and specifically concentrates on adult disabilities and tries to answer the question on whether assessment and management of risk in social work with disabled adults can be described as a complex and problematic phenomenon.

A number of materials-books and journals will be used during the research of this subject. The utter generality of the ongoing cultural debate about organizations and personification has predestined that all facets, phase, or parts of social work have been influenced by it and the UK has not been left behind as its impact has certainly not been confined to those working in the new ‘adults’ social services departments.

Assessment and management of risk in social work with disabled adults can be described as a complex and problematic phenomenon

Social workers as professionals are required to be persons who are strong willed and have the desire to be of assistance in the improvement of other people’s lives especially those with disabilities. For that reason, social work as a professional career for any individual entails provision of help, provision of solutions to personal problems such as personal, family and relationship matters to people in their everyday lives.

Furthermore, social workers are also involved in providing help to disabled people, or persons dealing with life threatening or fatal diseases and cases where social problems come into play such as drug abuse and unemployment. Consequently, social workers wind up being connected with or participating in research studies either as subjects or conductors of the study itself, advocates for an improvement of services and policy development/planning involvement (Priestley 2003).

In essence, social work is concerned with providing and making available their services to a specific target populace. They are by and large, concentrated in diverse areas of practice in relation to a person’s inclination and capability. The areas of expertise found under social work fall under political, mental health, elderly, slums dwellers, medical and education. If they have the right State mandated license, these workers are referred to as licensed clinical social workers in spite of whichever setting they are in (Oliver & Sapey 2006).

During the last decade, the viewpoints and principles of the Independent Living Movement have had a considerable power to influence people’s perceptions or deeds by way of dispute, for example, or vigor of character in regard to social work in the area of adult disability.

A shift in practice has been observed from establishment of clients who are reliant on services offered by professionals, to formation of working partnerships with the disabled people in question. This is happening so as to be able to secure the rights of adults with disabilities to be recognized as equivalent citizens of a state (Thomas 2003).

Notwithstanding the shift observed in the last ten years or so, there has also been a substantial sudden increase of attention being heaped on the health, well-being and the embodiment of the nature of social experience (Oliver 1990).

These signs can be witnessed just about everywhere around us. Intellectuals round the world have been engaged in debates over the nature, implication and reason of human life for taking place as the ‘Darwinian theory versus the bible’ debates of the late 19th century have somehow also engaged debates about the connection between humankind and the human body.

These debates take up a scientific, philosophical and theological dimension. Simultaneously, balancing, holistic, mind or body psychotherapies are more and more becoming common. In the UK, media stations have diverted much attention to more attractive reports like corpulence, ‘size zero’ models and celebrities drug abuse (Thomas 2003).

A study/inspection of social services carried out by the Social Services Inspectorate (SSI) shows that only an eighth of the eight departments surveyed had a plan definite for the disabled adults. The inspection carried out was to assess the services and help offered to support parenting roles of adults with disabilities (Warren 2007).

This led to recommendations being put forward on shifting the outlook in approach of provision of services to working with the disabled persons by recognizing their right to be offered support to accomplish their responsibilities as parents. In addition to this, strategy and policy development to improve ‘joined-up working’ across adults’ and children’s service divisions and between agencies were to be formed.

The 2007 UNICEF report on children in the UK and the USA, reveal the position children occupy to be at the bottom of the list in developed countries in conditions where a range of indicators of health and well-being were in play. Sizeable soul-searching by observers has been motivated in the path of which ‘wellbeing and happiness’ became bundled to nearly all aspects of becoming adults in the society, including offenses, cruelty, the impoverishment of children and the apparent ‘break-down’ of family ties.

There was appeal for information-specified parents who had bodily and sensory incapacitation and or parents with learning incapacitations to evade replicating functions done by the National Institute of Social Work.

In respond to this, in 2002 the Rowntree Foundation set up a task force named, Supporting Disabled Adults In Their Parenting Role, to survey and try to shed some light on how many social services departments in Britain had policies and protocols that covered disabled adults (parents) and how far they were likely to address anxiety raised by the inspectors and by disabled parents (Johnstone 2001).

The responses obtained from about 125 departments visited showed that thirty one of these departments had policies still in draft forms or early stage of implementation. An additional twenty nine departments were either in the process of laying down policies or were planning to do so. On the other hand, sixty three of the departments had no immediate plans to come up with policies. This clearly shows a worrying trend in provision of social services to adults with disabilities (Brown 2003).

Assessment carried out on children alone and not on disable parents and their entitlement to social service provision, can turn out to portray the children as ‘in need’ or ‘at risk’ or as ‘young carers’ (Rapley 2004). Although social services departments are aware that disabled adults are wary of approaching social services for support with parenting, they more than often seem to be taking few measures to allay these fears.

The Community Care legislation was introduced to support social services, together with provision of support to disabled adults to fulfill their parenting roles and responsibilities.

This is weighed down by a persistent complexity brought about by policies and protocols, which indicated that where parenting roles are left out of eligibility criterion for Community Care services, disabled parents would either not reach the threshold for receiving Community Care services or would not receive the extra attention necessary to meet parenting needs as well as personal needs (Shakespeare 2006).

The fairly less attention put on Community Care legislation and the role of provision of professional support to adults with disabilities compounded with the importance on children’s legislation, may suggest an easy slip away from the agenda of providing support for disabled adults in their parenting role and be replaced with alarms over children’s welfare.

Making certain that participation between professional social workers with adults with disabilities the whole time contact with the family is maintained, as well as cases where concerns of child protection may arise, provides for the best opportunity of guaranteeing stability of support being given to the parent and a better relationship between disabled parents and social services (Williams 2006).

Most of these policies articulated clear and precise objectives to provide and support disabled parenting. Nonetheless, the legislative routes to be utilized were not very clear.

This was particularly obvious in regards to adult community care legislation. The report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found out that just about two-thirds of those that responded adult based social workers. However, in terms of the documented plans and procedures, reference to children laws together with children protection actions were usually many, explicit and potent. Unlike references to adult laws and regulation, which were normally dispersed and diffuse.

Social workers have in recent times become more occupied with challenge of how to smooth the progress of movement from ‘structured dependency’ to ‘the realization of human rights’ (Oliver 1990). The disability and equality act 2010 that replaced the disability discrimination Act defines a person with disability as one who suffers from physical or mental impairment and if it has a substantially long term adverse effect on them.

Outcomes-focused assessment

Buoyant due to the views that social service demands an enabling of adults with disabilities to accomplish their everyday tasks and roles linked to their quality of life; researchers into social work and its dynamics are questioning the basics about the evaluation. For instance, on the basis of their work with young people, many of whom had complex health care needs, which Gates (2006) argues that there should be a new ‘outcomes-focused practice’.

Provided that the formation of assessment models is based on the notions of ‘need’, they will continue to be in conflict with the new attitude of ‘personalized social care’. To support this, studies go on to point out the course of action in identifying ‘needs’ without a doubt engages prejudiced judgments on the part of the professionals concerned. This subjectivity is argued that it creates a professional ‘problematic’ concept.

Developing a model or framework for health and disability necessitates a foundation of positive vision with the sole function of embracing hopes, aspirations and quality of life rather than looking to only deal with short term problems and shortfalls.

Engaging of older people together with professionals in the redesigning of models of health and social risks and needs appraisal and assessment proved to be productive. It shows that the accessible expertise could be customized (at a conceptual level) to produce a mechanism that has the potential of improving adults with disabilities access to social services and information.

Studies and researches carried out on health; show an interrelation between health and disability. The UK among others has recently come up with policies and legislations in an attempt to extend disability rights, outlaw discrimination on the basis of disability and fight some of the most apparent types of stereotypical social exclusion.

British social work has transformed into social care service providers with an aim of providing ‘accessible’ and ‘person-oriented’ attention, though there have been several efforts to breakdown synthetic obstacles between health and social care professionals.

The nineties saw the United Kingdom come up with premeditated models of assessment on a needs-led principle assessment meant to ensure social care services were integral to adults with disabilities rather than the other way around. This idea should therefore have amplified the position of evaluation of administration of risk in social care organization development with the goal of autonomous alliance with the social representation of disability. However as commonly perceived, this has not been occurring due to the concept of ‘need’.

It is worthy noting that the principle of assessment goes further than just simply being in contention that social workers need to pay attention to what disabled service users desire. This approach to assessment is entirely quite new. Its application in health and disability does not sort out the desires and perceptions of service users say through the idea of ‘need’.

By and large, this principle has been expressed as an ‘outcomes-focused’ form of assessment whose foundation is hinged on the initiative of exploring together with adults with disabilities the wouldesired outcomes’ that would really have an effect on their day to day lives and then utilizing these wouldesired outcomes’ as a focus point of carrying out assessment.

These assessments can only be carried out through a partnership with the service users and complete consultation from other qualified persons, as they would necessitate a variety of diverse responses from a large assortment of organizations. As a result, option, empowerment and coalition might in reality be fully realized as a means of evaluation (Rothman 2004).

At this moment in time, the outcomes assessment model is immature and is beset by a myriad of apparent problems. It is neither clear how ‘preferred outcomes’ can be fixed into a legal structure of enforceable privileges; nor is it visible how or if the evils connected with the allotment of inadequate services will be influenced by the end objective. Nonetheless, the new model has already changed the way in which discussions of evaluation perceptions are approved despite its present representation state (Hodges 2003; Leslie 2004).

As it might be expected, there are various developing debates which indicate feasible results expressed in our minds by the ‘outcomes for children’ model. The focal point of every child is important, and recognized as government efforts to re-conceptualize specialized performance among social workers that shares to the set out progressive series of effect for children and young people alike.

In addition, an exceptionally essential discrepancy between the proposal for an ‘outcomes-oriented’ application in the health and disability discipline and the ‘outcomes for children’ noted in ‘Every Child Matters’ is evident. Until now, no-one has been able to advocate for ‘outcomes’ for adults with disabilities.

Whilst there is continuous debate and uncertainty whether the assessment and management of risk in social work with disabled adults results to being a complex and problematic phenomenon the possibility for a holistic, well-timed and suitable family support from the family by social workers can only be realized where an understanding of the role of supporting parents in safeguarding the welfare of their children is in place and probable actions are undertaken to maintain the right of disabled adults to receiving of assistance to their parenting tasks and responsibilities. There is growing concern around the world on meeting the needs of disabled adults in a harmonized way.

Nevertheless, unanswered concerns regarding the most suitable way to widen work across adults’ and children’s divisions still abound. The 2002 study carried out by the Rowntree foundation clearly shows a worrying trend in provision of social services to adults with disabilities. In addition, to this a study carried out by the Social Services Inspectorate (SSI), also found out the trend among social services department of not having drawn up specific policy plans that were particularly tailored to provide social services to disabled adults.

In light of this scenario, assessment and management of risk in social work with disabled adults could and can be described as a complex and problematic phenomenon, due to the dynamics involved, but is very necessary so as to avoid persistence of child poverty and the perceived ‘breakdown’ of family life in addition to cases of lack of provision of social services to disabled adults resulting to a concern for child protection.

Recognizing the barriers created by social care services and how they can be identified is a sure way of making certain that assessment is not turned into an unrecognizable phenomenon.

Brown, I., 2003. Quality of Life and Disability: An Approach for Community Practitioners. London: Jessica Kingsley.

Gates, B. (ed), 2006. Care Planning and delivery in Intellectual Disability Nursing . Oxford: Blackwell.

Hodges, S., 2003. Counselling Adults with Learning Disabilities. Basingstoke: Palgrave/Macmillan.

Johnstone, D., 2001. An Introduction to Disability Studies . London: David Fulton Publishers.

Leslie, J., (ed) 2004. Care of the Adult with a Chronic Illness or Disability: A Team Approach . St. Louise: Elsevier Mosby.

Oliver, M., 1990. The Politics of Disablement. Basingstoke: MacMillan.

Oliver, M. & Sapey, B., 2006. Social Work with Disabled People . Basingstoke: Macmillan. 3rd Edn

Priestley, M., 2003. Disability: A Life Course Approach . Cambridge: Polity.

Rapley, M., 2004. The Social Construction of Intellectual Disability . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rothman. J. C., 2004. Social Work Practice Across Disability. London: Allyn & Bacon.

Shakespeare, T., 2006. Disability Rights and Wrongs . London: Routledge.

Thomas, D., 2003. Working with People with Learning Disabilities: Theory and Practice . London: Jessica Kingsley.

Warren, J., 2007. Service User and Carer Participation in Social Work . Exeter: Learning Matters.

Williams, P., 2006. Social Work with People with Learning Difficulties . Exeter: Learning Matters

Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, April 2). British Social Work: Risk Assessment and Management. https://ivypanda.com/essays/social-work/

"British Social Work: Risk Assessment and Management." IvyPanda , 2 Apr. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/social-work/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'British Social Work: Risk Assessment and Management'. 2 April.

IvyPanda . 2022. "British Social Work: Risk Assessment and Management." April 2, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/social-work/.

1. IvyPanda . "British Social Work: Risk Assessment and Management." April 2, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/social-work/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "British Social Work: Risk Assessment and Management." April 2, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/social-work/.

Non-Disabled Activists Should Not Campaign for the Liberties of Disabled People
Sexuality in Disabled People and Social Attitude
Parenting Children With Learning Disabilities
Rich Kids and American Higher Education
Violence and Adult Literacy Opportunities
Cultural Philosophy in the Twenty First Century
Social Stratification System in the United States
Social Change and the Role of Environmental Factors

IMAGES

Risk Assessment In Social Work Essay Free Essay Example
British Social Work: Risk Assessment and Management
Assessment Framework Social Work Free Essay Example
Social Work Implications Essay Example for Free
Full article: Understanding Risk in Social Work
(PDF) Social Work, Risk, Power

VIDEO

Risk & Safety Assessment: How Issues of Race, Equity & Diversity Impact Risk & Safety Assessment
Essay on society // 10 line on society // Essay writing on society in English // Essay writing
Critical Social Security Update: 60 Million Americans at Risk!
At Immediate Risk: Social Security Update for 60 Million Seniors, SSDI, SSI, Low Income, Seniors
Medical Social Worker Interview Questions
Live analysis of Nifty & Banknifty

COMMENTS

Full article: Understanding Risk in Social Work
The study of 'risk' in social work is a fundamental topic of interest to this journal, where there is a complex interplay between human behaviour, emotion, evidence of fact, professional values and organisational systems. This special issue includes articles from esteemed social work researchers and theorists from around the globe, writing ...
Risk in Social Work Practice: Current Issues
Abstract. The study of 'risk' in social work involves complex interplay between human behaviour, emotion, evidence of fact, professional values and organisational systems. This book brings ...
Risk Assessment in Social Work
Risk can be described as a 'hazard, or a chance/likelihood of a loss or a particular event to occur' (Collins, 2012), which can appear as a great uncertainty in relation to social work when intervening in people's lives. Over the years this has been more formalised by statistical probability and structured assessment tools to guide ...
Managing Risk and Uncertainty in Social Work: A Literature Review
Abstract. •. *Summary: This review, which draws mainly but not exclusively on UK material, explores the social work literature on managing risk and uncertainty, with emphasis on community care. Risk has become a major, if not over-arching, preoccupation in social work, reflected in a huge upsurge of written material. •.
Reflective Practice And Risk Analysis Social Work Essay
This essay will, initially, explore and demonstrate a critical understanding of the key concepts of risk assessment and risk management. It will then provide an analysis of the political, cultural and social contexts that shape practice in relation to risk management. Following this, a critical appreciation of the concept of risk decision ...
Effective Approaches to Risk Assessment in Social Work: An
The meaning of risk can be described as calculation of probabilities of events, both positive and negative. Barry (2007) describes that, in case of social work, risk is associated with negativity ...
Governing Risk: Care and Control in Contemporary Social Work, Mark
The literature of social work is replete with titles that have risk as their starting point. A cursory look at the published material shows that, in the main, there are three themes that emerge strongly: the political and social (e.g. Webb, 2006), the theoretical (e.g. Parton, 2006) and the practitioner/how to themes (e.g. Calder, 2008). This book is different in that it approaches the field ...
Book Review: Assessment, risk and decision making in social work by
of Social Work at Ulster University, N. Ireland. Brian is the leader of a research team focusing on Decision, Assessment, Risk and Evidence Studies in Social Work. Both authors have extensive knowledge and experience in assessment and decision-making regarding service users.
Risk Management in Social Work
A pocket guide to risk assessment and management in mental health. Abingdon, UK, and New York: Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/97802037955. A useful overview of risk-management issues and challenges involved in the assessment of high-risk clients. Focuses on issues related to suicide, self-harm, and dangerousness.
Effective approaches to risk assessment in social work : an
This report offers an international review of the literature (including refereed journal articles, policy documents, books and commissioned reports) within predominantly English-speaking countries about risk assessment in social work. The literature review includes an analysis of key research, policy, previously undertaken literature reviews and other relevant documentation primarily in the UK ...
Assessing Risk in Social Work
It has five stages that help guide the social worker through an evidence-based risk assessment. The stages used in assessing risk in social work include: Stage 1: Gather information. Stage 2: Assess harm and risk of harm. Stage 3: Decide the response.
Young People, Risk Taking and Risk Making: Some Thoughts for Social Work
Young people and risk—locating the problem. The idea of youth at risk has become central to a range of discourses, academic and professional. In the regional and global contexts of significant social, economic and technical change, narratives of risk and uncertainty are widespread (Beck et al., 1994; Beck, 1999; Giddens, 1999).Young people, meanwhile, are seen both as a treasured resource ...
The Processes Managing Risk With Vulnerable People Social Work Essay
Kemshall (2002) argued that social work is predominantly concerned with handling and assessing risk instead of focusing on social need and justice. It is argued in "Social Work in a Risk Society" that, as a response to risk, the reconfigurations between state, politics, science and people are particularly felt in world of social work (Webb ...
Risk assessment process and key points to risk identification in
The risk assessment process has four distinctive and sequential stages, and social care practitioners should go through each of them with the individual. Understanding the person's circumstances. Identifying risks. Assessing impact and likelihood of risks. Managing risks - risk enablement and planning.
Risk Assessment
TITTERTON, M., (2005) Risk and risk taking in health and social welfare, London: Jessica Kingsley WEBB, S. (2002) Evidence-based practice and decision analysis in social work - an implementation model, British Journal of Social Work, 2, 45-63. WEBB, S., (2007) Risk. Social Work and Society, 4, 2, 379- 382. 8
Impact Of Theories Relating To Risk Social Work Essay
The notion of 'Culture Theory' developed by Mary Douglas (1966, 1798) and Douglas and Wildavsky (1982) has been influential in looking at perspectives on risk. Cultural theory aims to explain how personality and cultural traits influence risk perceptions and why different people and social groups fear different risks.
Risk Assessment In Social Work Essay Free Essay Example
Views. 432. The sample essay on Risk Assessment In Social Work Essay deals with a framework of research-based facts, approaches and arguments concerning this theme. To see the essay's introduction, body paragraphs and conclusion, read on. Hazard can be described as a 'hazard, or a chance/likelihood of a loss or a peculiar event to happen ...
Reflective Practice And Risk Social Work Essay
Reflective Practice And Risk Social Work Essay. "A good risk decision requires both good risk assessment and good risk management" (Carson and Bain, 2008: 156). The intention of this assignment is to critically evaluate this statement with reference to my own practice experience. With the focus of this piece of practice being on children ...
Full article: How social workers reflect in action and when and why
Abstract. The need for professionals to use reflection to learn about and develop their practice is now a universally stated goal. In social work however there has been little research into whether and how reflection in action actually occurs and this paper explores the possibilities and limits to reflective practice by drawing on research that observed encounters between social workers and ...
British Social Work: Risk Assessment and Management Essay
Introduction. This study paper looks at British social work and specifically concentrates on adult disabilities and tries to answer the question on whether assessment and management of risk in social work with disabled adults can be described as a complex and problematic phenomenon. We will write a custom essay on your topic. 809 writers online.
Reflective Practice And Risk Essay
The purpose of this essay is to critically evaluate the following statement with reference to my own practice experience in working with risk. "As social workers it is especially critical that we apply a resilience-lens, that is, a strengths-based practice approach…" (Saleeby, 2006, p.198). With the focus of this piece of practice on ...