The
conference was inspirational, imbuing us with a real sense of
belief in and optimism for the children and young people we work
with. It engendered a vision, and hopefully a need, for its participants
to return to their workplaces and endeavour to whittle away at
the overly protective and regulatory practices and procedures
that prevent children from enjoying the richness of their childhood.
I
was a co-presenter at one of the conference sessions and would
like to share some of the points we put forward in our presentation
on the risk-averse culture that can pervade residential child
care services.
Our
session started with a ten year-old story of a residential child
care unit manager, a few workers and some young people taking
off to the Highlands of Scotland in a council bus, with a dog
and a few beers. This was a spontaneous act, with no risk assessments
prepared beforehand, permissions sought, or thought given to specialised
equipment needed. Needless to say the adventure was hugely successful
from an individual and group-management point of view. It was
fun, educational, and therapeutic.
We
then encouraged participants at this session to think of the risky
adventures that they enjoyed 
as
children and of their benefits and gains. We did not advocate
that any such adventures be undertaken without thought being given
to safety and risk but we wanted individuals to think about how
children and young people today may miss out on such activities
and the loss to them from doing so.
We
wanted participants to think about why we have a preoccupation
with risk presently. I mentioned the studies of a number of academics
who have found a greater incidence of the use of the ‘risk’
word in journals and texts over the past twenty years. Some have
suggested that the language of risk is taking over from that of
need or welfare in the personal social services, our jobs being
all the more about risk assessment, risk management and monitoring
risk.
I
shared the theories for why we may be so risk-conscious, as understood
by Beck (1992) and Giddens (1994). They argue that risks are more
globalised, less identifiable and therefore less easily managed,
that the change, flux and cultural fragmentation of contemporary
western society leave greater uncertainty and insecurity, and
that dangers and hazards are now seen as humanly generated rather
than supernatural.
But
where has this risk-averse culture seeped into residential child
care from?
It is within and without. It exists beyond our environment and
permeates it.
It has crept down from our bureaucratic hierarchies with their
managerialist approaches. The litigious climate we live in has
infected the public care service.
We
are all less likely to ‘take risks’ and more likely
to ‘feel at risk’. We view children differently now,
seeing more and more of them ‘at risk.’ But is this
really the case? I believe it is dangerous thinking. All of us
are active participants in situations where we ‘take risks,’
but become passive subjects when labelled as ‘at risk.’
It becomes no longer what one does but who one is. Furedi (2004)
suggests that increasingly someone defined as ‘at risk’
is seen to exist in a ‘permanent condition of vulnerability’
and of children, this then becomes a ‘fixed attribute.’
We
asked participants if they viewed the children and young people
they work with as having this ‘fixed attribute’ of
‘permanent vulnerability.’ And suggested that if this
is their perception then this will inevitably affect how they
work with them. What then is the effect on children and young
people when they are perceived in and behaved towards in this
way? They are likely to internalise this sense of themselves and
feel all the more vulnerable and ‘at risk.’
Workers
with children and young people in other European countries seem
not to be so influenced and constrained by this perception and
its consequence of over-protection. I quote Moss and Petrie (2002,
p.129), writing of a visit to an integrated school in Gothenberg,
Sweden.
“Children
were playing in the school grounds and in the local woods with
no boundary between the school and the local environment......The
children were ‘doing their own thing’. Some played
with a hosepipe in the school yard, others scrambled up a granite
outcrop, still others climbed a tree. Two free-time pedagogues
were walking around the grounds...(they) could not see all the
children, but said that they knew of their whereabouts. They were
taking little part in the children’s activities, not out
of carelessness, but seeing non-intrusion as appropriate in the
circumstances. When asked if the children ever had accidents,
one...replied that a boy had fractured his arm...and that occasional
accidents were to be expected – but not over-protected against.
The understanding was that the cost of a broken arm was to be
measured against the child’s right to play freely with other
children”.
To
me this story paints a lovely picture of a group of children enjoying
their childhood as they would like, knowing that caring adults
are around if need be and appreciating their non-intrusion. Does
this happen in residential child care units?
Colleagues
of mine in SIRCC recently undertook a small-scale study looking
at how rights of children and young people are balanced against
risks, their rights to experience and hopefully enjoy, and benefit
from, outdoor activities against the risks inherent in such activities
to their health and wellbeing. They interviewed unit managers,
basic grade staff and young people themselves.
Unit
managers were concerned about the restrictive impact of some Health
and Safety policies and procedures. Young people described limitations
to the activities on offer, often dependent on the staff on duty
or the need for a degree of planning. The basic grade staff seemed
to prioritise safety over potential benefits of activities involving
a small degree of risk.
It
could be concluded from this small study that the policies and
procedures in place are there not in ‘the best interests
of the children’ but at the expense of their needs and rights.
To quote from the study paper, “The research indicates that
current health and safety policies are infringing on the rights
of children and young people to experience a full range of activities
which might otherwise contribute positively to their development.”
So
what should we do? Let’s certainly review our restrictive
policies and procedures. Let’s change our perception and
attitudes and therefore behaviours towards the vulnerability of
children and young people. A different approach would incorporate
the principles of working with children and young people on developing
their resilience, enabling them to understand and manage day to
day risks, preparing them for reality. It would focus on a ‘strengths-based’
view of children and young people, seeing them not as victims
in need of our protection, - though some do need this for sure,
- but as individuals with great strength and potential and agency
in many areas of their lives, if only we could allow this.
This
would better meet the needs of children and young people but from
a selfish point of view, we might like to consider the risk of
legal action being taken against ourselves and the agencies we
work for, if we fail to provide the essential experiences children
and young people need to develop into healthy, strong, able, and
resilient adults.
Is
it even possible that, rather than protecting children from every
possible risk, we may have become the ones who are putting our
children and young people at risk, of being ill-equipped to meet
the challenges of the ‘real world’?
References:
Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society: Towards
a New Modernity London, Sage.
Furedi, F. (2004) Therapy Culture
London, Routledge.
Giddens, A. (1994) Living in a post-traditional
society in
Beck, U., Giddens, A. and Lash, S. Reflexive
Modernisation:
Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order
Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 56-109
Milligan, I. and Stevens, I. (to be published) Balancing
Rights
and Risks: The Impact of Health and Safety Regulations
on the Lives of Children in Residential Care
Moss, P. and Petrie, P.(2002) From
Children’s Services
to Children’s Spaces London, Routledge
