It seems that many social workers and those agencies they work for remain unable to escape the perception that their primary purpose (if not failing) is that of risk management and the protection of vulnerable individuals in society, notably children and older people. This is despite strong roots in community development and social justice and the myriad, if not majority of, successful empowering interventions. This situation is perhaps most easily explained by the highly profiled media and public airing of serious case investigations and reports that occur on the rarer occasion things go significantly wrong. The frequent clarion call of recommendations is for more social work training, better risk management and increased communication and working between agencies. This edition of practice brings together a number of articles that explore these considerations and with a particular focus on the second, namely the assessing for and responding to risk.
Our exploration begins with Orlanda Harvey’s examination of the ethics of social work practice in regards to non-prescribed use of Anabolic Androgenic Steroids. Her critical review begins by contextualising the harms associated with such use and how these frame understandings of perceived vulnerability and risk. Legislative frameworks and journeys into use are then expounded upon to help extract the key considerations of potential social work ethical dilemmas for practice. Issues such as confidentiality, stereotyping and media portrayals of masculinity, require social workers to balance awareness, assessment and intervention without arriving at assumptions of risk and vulnerability.
In a similar vein, but through a small scale qualitative study, Stephanie Bramley, Caroline Norrie and Jill Manthorpe, explore largely non-specialist social workers dilemmas with another specific perceived vulnerable group of individuals, adults who gamble. After a brief exploration of how vulnerability and risk sits within the current contexts of UK gambling, the authors present some detailed examples of and discussions about social workers views on the practice implications of working with those who gamble. The article is structured around four key thematic findings: related to social workers (1) concerns about the pervasiveness and appeal of gambling; (2) lack of knowledge of the complexities surrounding gambling and gambling-related harm; (3) uncertainties about how to support adults with care and support needs at risk of gambling-related harm; (4) desire for professional development activities. They conclude that there is evidence to suggest this is ‘a new or emerging issue for practitioners working within {generic} adult social work’, as well as being located with the more traditional health, psychology, and charity orientations of specialist addiction services.
These two examples utilise what might be considered as fairly traditional clinical led approaches and tools to assess risk and supporting decision making. In the third article, Phillip Gillingham examines how new and distinguishable big data techniques, and specifically algorithmic decision support systems (DSS), are being used worldwide to generate recommendations to support risk orientated decision making. The article highlights a number of examples of this use in social work from The Netherlands, New Zealand, and the United States, and with regards to children, child care and domestic violence. Gillingham then highlights the limitations of the technological methods and the potential ethical dilemmas and social justice concerns that arise in their use of social work. It concludes with identifying a range of principles that can improve the accountability of DSS and how these principles can be adopted within social work practice. In predicting further use of big data in and on social work the article concludes with suggesting the need for an increase in awareness and application by the profession.
Our final article by Joan Rapport, Geraldine Poirier Balani and Jill Manthorpe, provides a descriptive account of the introduction of Family Group Conference in New Brunswick. In doing so it takes us back to our starting point and how does a system of social work respond to high profile child-care tragedies. The authors describe the New Brunswick system as one that assumes errors are systematically before they are individual and then highlight how the implementation of the conference system can simultaneously improve practice, reduce risk and improve outcomes. It then goes onto explore why other applications of Family Group Conference have perhaps been less successful. In examining what might make the difference the authors conclude, perhaps somewhat unsurprisingly, that this lies in consistent and genuine offers to families supported by well-resourced and experienced social workers. Rapport, Poirier and Manthorpe highlight that risk is a reality and while it can be minimised it can never be eliminated. In common with the other three articles they place an emphasis on good practice and systems.
[email protected]