Maximising risk in child protection - A response to Morley (2003)

Transcription

1 Maximising risk in child protection - A response to Morley (2003) Tony Stanley Tony Stanley is a full time doctoral student at Canterbury University, where he is researching decision making in social work practice with respect to discourses of risk. He is also teaching Critical Debates in New Zealand Society in the Department of Social Work, at Canterbury, and working part time for Child Youth and Family Services. Tony has practiced in the areas of child protection, mental health and HIV/ AIDS. He can be contacted at tony.stanley@canterbury.ac.nz The Risk Estimation tool, to me, it formalises things [and] also gives you something to back up whatever assessment that you've come to so doing the RES tells, just reassures that (Social Worker 27). There has been increasing attention paid to risk within social work practice and literature of late. However, within the literature scant attention has been paid to what constitutes risk and the role social workers have in this construction. Christine Morley s (2003) recent article in Social Work Review (XV, 1&2) argued that risk assessments may be problematic for critical practice. In this article I want to challenge this position and draw on my doctoral research where I interviewed 70 statutory social workers in Aotearoa New Zealand around decision making and risk. I argue that risk holds potential for social work practice and it is through the sets of analytic and investigative question-ing that social workers bring to assessment work that the potential for risk can be realised. In drawing on the voices from the frontline, this paper attempts to provide the social workers experience and add to the literature that continues to debate risk assessment outside of the empirical level. The analysis in child protection requires social workers to look across the systems of a child s life and in so doing differing stories, accounts and assessments will be considered by the social worker (Connolly, 2001). This is what Parton (1998) argued is the skill and expertise in social work necessary in making sense of child protection practice, which at times is an uncertain art. He argued for the re-emergence of ambiguity and uncertainty as constructs not to be replaced or fixed rather as areas of practice where social workers have historically been regarded as more expert in. Morley (2003) raises some interesting points in her article and I want to extend and open up some of these points for further discussion here, primarily arguing that risk is potentially able to offer more in child protection practice than is currently utilised. The research drawn on in this article is part of my Doctoral study 1, a qualitative research project where I interviewed 70 statutory social workers throughout New Zealand and asked them about cases where they have assessed risk and their associated practice decisions. In New Zealand, risk discourses emerged in child protection in response to calls by both workers and community for a safer, more consistent social work practice. Smith (1998) argued for a practice framework of analysis that was consistent in the field and in worker supervision at a time when 30 different risk assessment tools and checklists where in use. The Risk Estimation System (RES) is the model of risk assessment used in New Zealand to assist in the investigation of child abuse and neglect. The RES, introduced in 1996, is a consensus-based model 2. Twenty-two risk scales are included in the analysis undertaken by a key social worker with the assistance of a colleague. In

2 this model, parental attitudes, family or whanau history, thinking and behaviour as well as social factors can be incorporated into the assessment. The Manitoba Model 3 was modified to incorporate the specific cultural factors for Aotearoa New Zealand. Cultural guidelines are incorporated into the risk assessment framework and as with other sections of the tool, composite scores are established following a narrative recording by the social worker at each section. Morley (2003) argued that risk assessment tools may devote inadequate attention to responsibility discourses. However, the RES has a focus on adult responsibility in child abuse and neglect with a focus on parental attitude, behaviours, beliefs in the child etc. Being a consensus model, the RES is dependent on sound professional judgement in information gathering, analysis of the situation and thus the informing of decision making. As Smith (1995) argued: At best, instruments and models are wonderful tools in decision making and good casework practice. At worst, they can negate practitioner responsibility and be used mechanistically and defen-sively. One fundamental question seems to be missing in the debate about risk assessment models and tools: What is risk? and how is that something is defined as being at risk while for others this is not the case? For the social workers in my research risk is a state, a defined and located context where intervention takes place. The intervening in risk mitigates against the negative outcomes that would likely occur if the situation or state was not adjusted. Morley (2003) argued that there is a potential for risk assess-ment tools to: reduce workers discretion by confining their decision making options and narrowing the parameters of their work (Morley, 2003: 36). In the Aotearoa New Zealand context the RES was introduced to counter this possibility as over 30 tools and checklists were in place when the RES was introduced in Concomitant with this is the focus on the social worker as the assessor of risk and the potential risks to them in cases where tragedy has occurred. Social workers are both subject to and subjects of risk. Morley (2003) reviews five models of risk assessment in operation and she addresses the strengths and limitations of each. However, missing from Morley s analysis is the social worker s construction of risk and their application of the tool. This is largely missing from the literature and my research aims to add to this understanding certainly within the Aotearoa New Zealand context. I think that the social worker being able to articulate the sets of risks that they are assessing/ investigating and the potential range of discourses enabling this position of risk to exist will counter some of the concern Morley (2003) raised. The super-vision context and collegial forums where risk assessment work is discussed and debated will additionally serve to enhance the level of analysis undertaken in defining and constituting risk. It is through an engagement with risk that new understandings of power, structural and interpersonal inequalities can be considered. The RES was designed to traverse the fields of practice where the social worker could engage in risk talk with colleagues, families and supervisors (Smith, 1995). Morley s discussion is centred in child protection and I think that the debate around risk assessment work needs to include the systems of practice where child protection work operates. In my research the Child Youth and Family social workers were largely assessing risk independently of other systems. This task is devolved to the CYF social worker as this worker commented: No, they left that for us to assess. The paediatrician was quite clear that he would do the initial assessment on the injuries and he would write a report and have that written and typed and in that report would be he would decide on the follow up care that was needed in terms of further assessments. He left the risk estimation, the potential for further risk up to us, he believed that that was for us to assess (Social Worker 1). For this social worker, the paediatric staff and police were not part of the assessment of risk around the child. The possibility then that discussions of risk may assist the systems of workers engaged in risk assessment are evident here. While this is a core function of statutory social work practice, the definitions and risk positions that operate in other sectors such as medical or law enforcement are not discussed or negotiated between the workers. It is through such engagement around risk that deeper analytical understandings can emerge and build on our knowledge of how and in what ways risk is constituted more broadly. Assessing risk was also undertaken independently of families. While the RES was drawn on in terms of risk discussion with families, the social workers largely regarded risk as being locatable

3 and therefore able to be intervened. My research showed that social workers regard risk as preexisting the assessment frame. In this way a consensus based tool such as the RES means that the social worker can engage in risk talk across the service within supervision and case meetings. For some social workers this tool enabled engagement with clients and a narrowing of the power inequality inherent in statutory social work practice. I was just with a family today, out with a social worker and I was talking about that, you know, the Manitoba Model (RES) that we have, [that] the children will not be returned to you because it takes two years for any addiction, so generally I use that for saying you need to be clean for two years before I look at returning children, two years (Social Worker 34). For this social worker, the risk assessment tool provides more than a frame of assessment the tool legitimates a decision based on international research that the social worker may not ordinarily have access to. The decision making processes of social workers in statutory practice are complex, multiple and accountable. Having assessment decisions backed-up was important for a number of social workers in my research. As one worker noted: The RES [Risk Estimation System] is a tangible piece of evidence that says there is the risk, it's not just in your head, and that, yes, you know it's an accountable thing (Social Worker 2: 270). For some social workers it is external reports which have the most weight and not their own assessment documented through the RES. But the medical people came back, did all the relevant paper work and [I] didn't need to do an RES, because I would have just found what possibly everybody else knows anyway (Social Worker 62: 205). For this social worker, the external medical reports are evidence enough for a decision to be made and the RES is duplication of an assessed position. The worker comments that the RES is an additional assessment process, unnecessary in this case. The wider welfare system uses the risk framing emerging from Child Youth and Family. Counsel for child, judges and lawyers are asking social workers if they have completed an RES. In one area of the country this has become routine, with the social workers noting that they are not asked about how this was done or issues emerging, simply have they completed the RES?. This produces both affirmation that the RES legitimates decision making in addition to justifying the risk assessment system. The risk assessment becomes part of the legitimisation of decision making with social workers using RES in the court processes to give credibility to their decisions. This point extends Morley s (2003) argument in that there is a potential here for the RES to be a tool of objectification, however, the social workers in my research used the tool for a range of purposes highlighting the flexibility and framing of risk that occurs in practice. The RES was designed to be a consistent practice and supervision framework. The social workers who participated in my research found the experience of articulating and storying their experiences of decision making and risk to be beneficial. For some, this was the first time they had been asked to articulate the risk they were assessing. Others remarked that the research process was like an in-depth supervision session. The following interview transcripts highlights this: I think I was expecting to be really under the grill for the decision making process and that's quite hard to articulate why you reach a decision, so perhaps if you had been a bit more stringent around that and why did you decide that, that might have been even more challenging (Social Worker 35). Again it just reinforced that I've made the right decision in that case in terms of yeah, in what I'm doing, but it's like, I got a lot of clarity. So thank you (Social Worker 8). The social workers experienced clarity and insight into their own practice through and engagement with risk. None of the participating social workers were perplexed at the completion of the interviews. The methodology was designed to be consistent with the practice environment and this is reflected in the comments made above. Impor-tantly, social workers articulate their case decisions, assessments and ideas to supervisors, colleagues, Commu-nity Care and Protection Resource Panels, families and children. Risk is a framework used increasingly in social work and as such provides a key point through which a case, child, family, community can be considered. Through such an engagement with risk, the potential to discover hidden power

4 inequalities that Morley (2003) raises as an issue in risk assessment work become overt and shared. Van Loon (2002) argued that the process of accepting the everyday understanding of risk conceals the socially negotiated constructions of risk. While such discussion is central to the analysis of child protection assessment work, the calls for a more generalised and common frame-work does little to establish deeper analytical understandings of how definitions and assessments of risk are formulated. I have argued in this paper that risk offers more to child protection practice than an assessment frame. In particular, I think that there are three main implications for child protection practice: 1. Risk is a socially defined and prescribing aspect for practice in child protection how can we use risk beyond the assessment tool frame? Social workers discuss risk in many forums and a deeper engagement in what constitutes risk and how this is defined could enhance analysis. 2. Systems and inter-agency work In what ways can risk be drawn on in the practice discussions occurring across the systems of child protection? How do the different perspectives define risk? In what way do medical models, legal and law enforcement, educational and social work models differ in constructing and defining risk? How can we engage in this talk across systems to enhance our understandings? 3. Professionalism where do social worker assessments sit? In addition, in what ways are risk estimations being used in the legal and practice forums to give additional credibility and weight to assessment decisions? Will reviews of the practice decisions based on risk estimations be seen as less professional by others and is this a potential de-profession-alising issue for social workers? These are the implications for social work practice in that opening up talk about what constitutes risk and how social workers arrive at this decision, raises the potential for a deeper analysis around risk in assessment work. The RES was a tool designed to be utilised in supervision in addition to the field and engaging in talk about the construction of risk would allow the potential of risk to be used in a deeper analysis of case investigations. This analysis could include the various systems involved and in what ways these systems constitute risk. In conclusion, I have argued here that we are yet to realise the potential of risk while social work fails to engage in what constitutes risk and in what ways risk is constructed within the social work fields of practice. My doctoral research shows that social workers employed in statutory child protection in Aotearoa New Zealand regard risk as an objective reality, something awaiting discovery. The missing debate in the literature is how and in what ways do we as practitioners actively construct risk in this way and in so doing restrict the possibility of seeing alternatives. As Morley (2003) argued, the development of risk assessment tools occurred throughout most western child protection systems and a larger body of literature has emerged from the United States and United Kingdom on the various models in place. However, scant attention has been paid to how social workers opera-tionalise such assessment systems and indeed what sets of meanings are drawn on in identifying and constructing risk in practice. I have argued here that the social workers from my research use the risk assessment tool (RES) as an assessing and investigatory framework in addition to the legitimation of decisions. However, as I have shown, the RES is applied following a decision to account for a child to be at risk. Therefore, the critical engagement of what constitutes risk and how this is managed seems central to effective social work practice. A move to push risk to the sideline of child protection practice seems to me to be potentially limiting the potential that risk has to offer. Acknowledgements. I acknowledge the social workers who took part in my research and thank them for their openness and interest in this research. My hope is that the experience of frontline practice will loop into the developing practices of child protection knowledge. I also acknowledge the Department of Child Youth and Family for supporting this research by way of access. A grant was received from the Ministry of Social Development to assist in travel and research costs.

5 References Connolly, M. (2001). Child care and protection services in New Zealand. In M. Connolly. New Zealand social work: contexts and practice: Oxford University Press: Auckland; Melbourne; Oxford. CYFS (2000). RES: Risk Estimation System Reference Manual: 102. Department of Child Youth and Family Services: Wellington. Doolan, M. (2002). (Former) Chief Social Worker. T. Stanley. Christchurch. Ferguson, H. (1997). Protecting children in new times: child protection and the risk society. Child and Family Social Work 2(4): Houston, S. and Griffiths, H. (2000). Reflections on risk in child protection: is it time for a shift in paradigms? Child and Family Social Work 5(1): Morley, C. (2003). The dominance of risk assessment in child protection: Is it risky? Social Work Review XV(1&2): Parton, N. (1996). Social theory, social change and social work. Routledge: London; New York. Parton, N. (1998). Risk, advanced liberalism and child welfare: The need to rediscover uncertainty and ambiguity. British Journal of Social Work 28(1): Parton, N. (1999). Reconfiguring child welfare practices: risk, advanced liberalism and the government of freedom. In A.S. Chambon, A. Irving and L. Epstein. Reading Foucault for social work: Columbia University Press: New York. Parton, N., Thorpe, D.H. et al. (1997). Child protection: risk and the moral order. Macmillan Press: Basingstoke. Smith, C. (1995). More than a gut feeling. Social Work Now 2: Smith, C. (1998). Beyond the tip of the iceberg. Social Work Now 11: Van Loon, J. (2002). Risk and technological culture: towards a sociology of virulence. Routledge: London; New York. The study received ethical approval from the CYF Research Access Committee and the Human Ethics Committee University of Canterbury. The substantive study considers the sets of relationships between decision making and risk discourses in statutory social work practice in Aotearoa New Zealand. Consensus based models of risk assessment incorporates the analysis of context, professional judgement and person in situation. The social worker is a key element in this model as the consensus they reach considers the vulnerability, future severity and probability of harm. The model incorporates a cultural frame of assessment applicable across cultural identities. The Manitoba Risk Estimation System, a Canadian Model, was considered both theoretically and pragmatically sound by the selection team from Child Youth and Family Services. 1 The study received ethical approval from the CYF Research Access Committee and the Human Ethics Committee University of Canterbury. The substantive study considers the sets of relationships between decision making and risk discourses in statutory social work practice in Aotearoa/ New Zealand. 2 Consensus-based models of risk assessment incorporate the analysis of context, professional judgement and person in situation. The social worker is a key element in this model as the consensus they reach considers the vulnerability, future severity and probability of harm. The model incorporates a cultural frame of assessment applicable across cultural identities. 3 The Manitoba Risk Estimation System, a Canadian Model, was considered both theoretically and pragmatically sound by the selection team from Child Youth and Family Services.