Vulnerabilities And Intentional Safeguards Michael J. Kendrick PhD Kendrick Consulting Intl [email protected] Michael

Michael J. Kendrick PhD

Vulnerabilities And Intentional Safeguards


Kendrick Consulting Intl

[email protected] www.kendrickconsulting.org

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.kendrickconsulting.org/


Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. The fearful are caught as often as the bold.

Helen Keller

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/h/helenkelle131866.html


The Term “Vulnerable” Derives From The Latin Words For

WOUND (S) I.E. “VULNUS”, “VULNERIS”

TO WOUND I.E. “VULNERARE”

BEING “VULNERABLE” MEANS BEING “ABLE TO BE WOUNDED”


Common Dimensions Of Human Vulnerability

MortalityPovertyIllnessPainTragedyMeaninglessnessDevaluationInsecurityRejectionLossConfusion

StagnationLonelinessDisruptionEstrangementDependencyViolenceDamageWasteReputationGuiltDespair


The Character Of Vulnerability

Vulnerability is integral to human nature and the human conditionPeople are vulnerable in multiple dimensionsVulnerabilities co-exist alongside other vulnerabilities and influence each other.Vulnerability is always a matter of degree i.e. it is usually portrayed relative to another stage of vulnerability



Vulnerabilities usually increase or decrease by linear increments; nevertheless they can radically alter their character under the right conditionsVulnerability can co-exist with great strengths, advantages and considerable resilience



Vulnerabilities are not only those “of persons”, they can also be those of culture, circumstances, environments, systems and mentalities.Vulnerabilities are not inherently good or bad; they are evaluated as such by persons and cultures



One can “vulnerate” (i.e. make vulnerable) or “in-vulnerate” a person or group depending on one’s actionsVulnerabilities can certainly be a component of the enjoyment of life and thus may be “life-giving” irrespective of the values of a culture



Vulnerabilities, properly appreciated, can lead to greater wisdom about what is important in lifeIntentional safeguards are part of the way we live with vulnerability, before, during and after wounding moments, though suffering may still be present even when we have managed it well


Common Sources of Vulnerability for People Receiving Services

Misunderstanding of the person and their needsMisplacement into an incorrect systemApplication of harmful treatmentsDisrespect of rightsInstitutionalisation/custodialisationDeprivation of valid treatmentIndifference/neglectLow expectations


Common Sources of Vulnerability for People Receiving Services (Cont)

Negative role expectations/false stereotypesDehumanisation(s)Segregation from communityLoss of autonomyLoss of personhood/identityInvoluntary povertyUse to benefit other interestsPredationAbuseDenial of/ refusal to provide servicePoor service models and theories


Some Examples Of Common Vulnerabilities Of People Who Are Unusually Dependent On The Formal Health Care System

Being perceived or valued negativelyBeing seen as diverting resources from more worthy usesNot being seen as meriting even normative levels of quality of care and attentionBeing perceived as probably being unresponsive to treatment i.e. not worth trying very hard on behalf ofNot having powerful advocates amongst most professionals and managers


Some Examples Of Common Vulnerabilities Of People Who Are Unusually Dependent On The Formal Health Care System

Having needs that require flexibility, vision and responsiveness from medical bureaucraciesBeing misdiagnosed, misunderstood and possibly mistreated due to false assumptions or theories about such personsVery little role and credibility given to the voice and capacities of non-professionals


Examples of Vulnerabilities That May Be Present For Person With Disabilities

Reliance on others for critical life functionsNon-recognition of dangersInability to fully communicate their needs and wantsA tendency to be patronised or be overlookedNeglectExposure to agency failures and dysfunctionsSexual exploitation in isolated and controlled residential settings


Examples of Vulnerabilities That May Be Present For Person With Disabilities

Utilisation as a pawn for vested interestsMisunderstanding of their crucial needs by decision makersStereotypes especially stigmatising onesBeing forced into irrelevant and even life wasting programmesRejectionSegregationDeath making, brutality and violencePoverty and powerlessness


Common Vulnerabilities Of Groups Who Are At Risk Of Social Devaluation That May Need Safeguarding

Risk of impoverishment and neglectRisk of social exclusion or isolationRisk of rejectionDisplacement from familiar surroundings and supports, eg. family, neighbourhoodLack of rights, autonomy, freedomIgnorance of their options, choices, possibilitiesLittle say in the structures, authorities that control their livesDeprivation of supports crucial to their health and wellbeing, eg. food, medicineA misrepresentation of their needs, identities, wishes, etc.


The Management Of Vulnerability

Vulnerabilities can be “managed” either adaptively or notVulnerabilities must be properly recognized and appreciated if they are to be managed wellMany vulnerabilities cannot ultimately be eliminated though they can be sensibly offset or compensated for



Given that vulnerabilities are multi-dimensional, it is usually necessary to develop strategies which are equally multi-dimensional and properly targetedThe potency of strategies used to safeguard people must match the potency of the vulnerability that is present to be optimal in their effect, though some beneficial effects can come from sub-optimal safeguards



Strategies to manage vulnerability need to be revised in accord with the changes that shape the character of vulnerability and in a timely mannerThe conditions that produce vulnerability are frequently ones that are beyond one’s immediate control and influence, and therefore must be “managed”, (from one’s position in the scheme of things), so as to “survive” them as best as may be possible



Vulnerabilities can be hierarchically ordered from the superficial to the profound, and therefore so can be the order of priority of strategies used to manage these The management of vulnerabilities requires the selection of priorities in order to marshal available safeguarding capacity most effectively



All strategies to manage vulnerability operate within the context of (usually multiple) limits, and the conscious and adaptive management of these limits is a necessityThe development of safeguarding strategies will greatly depend on how important such safeguards are to the key parties involved



Otherwise valid strategies to safeguard people or other assets may not be practical in many situations, and lesser remedies may have to suffice“Best possible at present” strategies are what is sought not wishful speculations



Safeguards are only effective when they actually adaptively manage vulnerability in practiceThe overall available capacity to safeguard people or situations is not usually a fixed “given”, but can be developed to some degree notwithstanding the inevitable limits that are present



Safeguarding people properly will routinely require that other parties be challenged and confronted, whether and how well this is done will predict the outcomeIt is quite common that reducing the vulnerability of one group may heighten the vulnerability of another acting on their behalf e.g. advocacy may incur costs for the advocate



It is to be expected that “safeguards dilemmas” will exist indefinitely and a new set of dilemmas will emerge from the resolution of earlier dilemmasThe resolution of “safeguarding dilemmas” will normally occur by increments of change in each dimension of the dilemmas rather than be “solved” for once and for all



Otherwise good safeguards can be implemented poorly or even harmfullyThe safeguarding parties may themselves be in need of some measure of safeguarding if they are to be effectivePoor safeguarding may well make people more rather than less vulnerable i.e. Weak safeguards or “safe-guarders” may actually increase vulnerability



The quality of safeguards approaches will derive from the solidness of the assumptions about people, vulnerabilities and the actual character of circumstancesIt is possible to learn to manage vulnerability better and to educate others about what has been learned thereby improving the “state of the art”



It is possible to learn to manage vulnerability better and to educate others about what has been learned, thereby improving the “state of the art”It is also possible to manage safeguarding in a vacuum of guidance, support and inspiration such that the quality of safeguarding is much less than might have been possible.


Common Constitutive Elements Of The Capacities Of Those Who Might

Undertake Safeguarding Roles

Their capabilities to properly recognize and attend to vulnerabilitiesTheir degree of weakness due to various conflicts of interest they may be inTheir enduring resolve to engage in painful, committing and costly safeguarding and the supports needed to do so




Their ability to imagine and negotiate often novel and innovative safeguardsTheir degree of vision for the person and their potentialsTheir status and legitimacy to act in a safeguarding roleTheir skilfulness and finesse




Their experience with the role and their ability to learn and master what is neededTheir dependability and fidelity to people’s best long-term interestsTheir organizational, emotional, moral, technical and financial support




The degree to which they can accept and operate within their limitsThe degree to which they have the specific talents to match the safeguarding problems at handTheir ability to muster and maintain crucial alliances in support of safeguarding




Their ability to renew themselves; particularly if the roles they play are demandingTheir ability to reliably stay focussed on the right things.Their accountability for their actions in the safeguarding role.The quality of their judgment calls.


Some Examples Of Useful SafeguardsFor Safeguarders

Various ongoing opportunities to be oriented to and clarify their roleOccasions to recognize, examine and resolve the potential conflicts of interests they may haveOpportunities to define and create the supports that might help strengthen them in their role



Opportunities to develop the skills they need and which they are capable of improving uponMentorship, consultation and guidance from trustworthy persons Deliberate occasions to examine, reflect upon and better manage the weaknesses and limitations that are present in their context of safeguarding



Exposure to innovative strategiesContact with others who share a safeguarding roleAssistance with deciding what safeguarding issues ought to be set as a priority and whyRegular occasions for renewal and inspiration


Why Intentional Safeguards May Be Needed?

Some Examples Of Some Common Limitations In Addressing Human Needs Inherent In Organizations


Examples Of Some Common Limitations In Addressing Human Needs Inherent In Human Beings Who Attempt To Do So

People may not want to serve othersThere may be to many to serveIt may not be clear what needs to be doneWhat may need to be done may be too difficultIt may be that one cannot serve wellIt may be that one loses interest in serving



One may serve erroneouslyOne may dislike those who need to be servedOne may have conflicts of interestsOne may too weak to withstand temptations to serve insufficientlyOne may be encouraged to serve by many of the wrong motivations



One may not be aware that one serves poorlyOne person may have too much pride to seek help from othersOne may overlook or discredit the wishes of those to be servedThe needs of others may be insatiableThe needs of the server may be unhelpful to those to be served



The complexity of understanding others may outstrip the ability of the person to do soThe server cannot get along with other crucial serversThe server lacks ambitiousness in terms of “imagining better”The person may give up too easily too often.


Examples of Some Common Limitations In Addressing Human Needs Inherent In Organizations

The organisation may not wish to serve othersThere may be too many who have been chosen to serveIt may not be clear what is to be doneWhat needs to be done is too difficult for the organisation



What needs to be done cannot be done by an organisationIt may be that many in the organisation dislike those being servedThe organisation may be filled with conflicts of interestThe organisation may put other needs first



Those being served are not well understood by the organisationThe organisation’s own bureaucratic functioning dissipates its potential to be of good serviceThe service organisation is unprepared for its role



The serving organisation cannot gain the cooperation from both within and without for what is neededThe serving organisation lacks leadershipThe service acts incorrectly and harmfullyThe service has too few of the needed strengths



The serving organisation was established for another reasonThe service lacks steadfastness and fidelity to those being served


Examples Of Issues That Can Serve As Points Of Struggle For Competing Vested Interests In Service

Control of service usersDesignation of who is a service userAccess to authoritative decision makingSetting of policyPriority settingControl of resources

Distribution of resourcesAccess to “perks”Hiring/dismissal of personnelLocation of servicesCharacter of servicesStatus assignments


Examples Of Common Limitations Individuals May Exhibit In Taking Advantage Of Genuinely Empowering Opportunities

IndecisionNaivete InexperienceTimidityImpatienceLack of finessePoor judgmentLack of appreciation of consequences ConfusionIntimidation

AnxietyLack of informationWeak vision of potentialitiesWillingness to settle for lessUnderdeveloped ideasLack of clarity re goalsFear of changePoor advice/ conflicting advice


Key Areas To Consider In Evaluating Areas Where Targeted Agency Safeguarding May Be Helpful

Agency valuesAgency goalsAgency prioritiesPersonnel selectionPersonnel preparation and supervisionCoherency of the agency’s modelThe consistency between values and practice



Clarity and regularity of planningAdministrative thoroughnessExternal influence on the agency’s practiceCoordination of effortProgramme intensityPeculiarities of “agency culture”Renewal of personnel and mission



LeadershipIntegrity of personnelConflicts of interestDecision making and judgementAccountability and transparency“Right relationship” issuesSharing of authority, decision-making and influence


Activities Involving People Are Always Dynamic And Shall Always Require Human Judgements Such As:

How much?When?By whom?Under what conditions?Which action?In which order?With which aim?At what cost?

With what hope in mind?What is to be valued?What is to be sacrificed?What might be lost or damaged?What consequences?Who is best for this task?


A Definition Of Intentional Safeguards

Intentional safeguards can be thought of as conscious design or practice features that can variably be added on, built in or strengthened in order to preserve or enhance something of value in a situation and thereby better manage the vulnerabilities of people and situations”



General Features Of Intentional Safeguards Oriented Thinking

Safeguards can be thought of as intentional adaptive design features that can variably be added on, built in or strengthened in order to preserve something of value in a situationRecognition that there are desirable elements in situations/services that should be preserved or enhanced


Features Of Intentional Safeguards Oriented Thinking

Recognition that all human activities are vulnerable to failure, perversity, entropy, goal displacement, etc.Recognition that many such shortcomings can be consciously anticipated



Recognition that conscious safeguards can be deliberately installed in advance to minimise likely anticipated shortcomings and to detect and counterbalance new emerging ones as early as possible.Recognition that a proper understanding of vulnerabilities can guide the thinking about what might be appropriate safeguards to respond to these.



Recognition that safeguards themselves can default and hence the value of:

Multiple safeguardsIndependent safeguardsSafeguards “redundancy”Safeguard renewalExternal as well as internal safeguardsSafeguards evolution



Recognition that intensive safeguarding, while valuable is not in itself, as valuable as doing the job well in the first place. Hence preventative safeguards should be given greater weight than corrective onesMultiple safeguards can combine to either complement each other for greater effect or dysfunctionality constrain each other



The presence of seemingly potent safeguards can, in itself, lead to a relaxing of the need to be alert to dangers as can long periods of favourable conditions – the potency of safeguards may be revealed in whether they will work when crisis tests them


Many safeguards occur “naturally” in cultures and society in the form of values, alliances, customs, structures, etc. These can be recognised and protected even if at the outset they go unappreciated



Recognition that taking shortcuts with safeguards will often succeed because good luck has favoured those involved. Nevertheless, this cannot be counted on (good luck) and it models carelessness to novicesRecognition that high consciousness of latent possibilities for error/perversities is the most fundamental of all safeguards



Recognition that individuals, groups, organisations and even systems require different orders of safeguardsRecognition that safeguards must be as potent and ingenious as the evils they are anticipating attempting to engage and manage



Safeguarding need not be seen as a separate or additional activity but can be embedded in the process of constructing/managing activitiesSafeguards are not just to oversee or protect, they may also be oriented to the enablement of underdeveloped positive potential to emerge, i.e. they may be a spur to constructive efforts or renewal



Some individuals and organisations may wilfully resist valid safeguards to their detrimentBasic assumptions concerning human nature need to be examined as essential underpinning vulnerabilities of many projects and activities as well as systems strategies.


Some perverse and largely unforeseeable aspects of human conduct may be very difficult to fully safeguard against, e.g. drive-by shootings, manipulation by sociopathic persons, self-destructive conduct, rare events etc.Complacency is universally worrisome from a safeguarding point of view


Examples Of Safeguards That Are Embedded In Everyday Life

The care, knowledge and commitment of a family to its member with a disabilityThe inclusion of a disabled family member in all aspects of the family lifeThe tradition of hospitality and welcome by community groupsThe relationships that come from “growing up” together



The presence of well placed friends and acquaintancesThe tradition of respect for human rights, especially those of minoritiesThe espousal of values which emphasise the equality and worth of all peopleA public tradition of critique, dissent and pluralism



An unwillingness to turn over responsibility and obligation to unknown others or systemsA tendency to check with the person before decisions are made that affect their livesValues and networks of mutual obligation that permit shared and beneficial personal and community action e.g. Neighbourhood Watch, Citizen Advocacy, Habitat for Humanity etc.


Some Common Reasons Why Internal Safeguards Are Often Weak Or Ineffectual

Those implementing them ultimately work for the organisation and are loyal to itThe cost of fomenting internal conflict can be substantial for the perpetratorThe organisation may be blind to the danger it transactsThe organisation’s ideologies and mythologies may prohibit or inhibit contrasting assumptions and values



They may bring no particular advantage to the organisation to compensate for the difficulties they may createThe safeguards may be due to external requirements and lack agency endorsement and commitmentThey may be denuded of requisite authority, talent, leadership, resources and status vis-à-vis mainline operations, i.e. seen as “a frill”



They benefit more from being weak, than being effectiveThe organisation is corrupt to start with and thus corrupts its own safeguardsThere is no influential constituency outside the organisation calling for safeguardsThe difficulties created by conflicts of interest compromise persons who might otherwise act with integrity


Some Reasons Why External Safeguards Can Be Stronger Than Internal Ones

They are independent of the control of the agencyThey are usually better insulated from the agency’s self-serving ideologiesThey are often created by groups who are fundamentally wary of the agencyThey usually develop the capacity for legitimising points of view excluded by the agency



They usually have less fear of reprisal if conflict is precipitatedThey usually have greater credibility due to their independence and externalityTheir livelihood is usually not beholden to the agency and its preferencesIndependent people are normally (more) able to draw upon greater depths of “free agency” in terms of their ability to act



Distance can often provide greater clarity and objectivityExternal safeguards need not be quite as circumspect and can be more incisive of their naming of problemsExternal safeguards often can obtain broad constituencies and advice outside the agency including the media


A Variety of Dichotomous Dimensions Of Safeguards

IntentionalFormalInternalPotentFlexibleRelevant

UnintentionalInformalExternalImpotentRigidIrrelevant


A Variety of Dichotomous Dimensions Of Safeguards

FundamentalNaturalRealisticAdequateReliableRevisable

SuperficialContrivedFantasticInadequateUnreliableFixed


Suggested Criteria For Evaluating The Likely Potency Of Advocacy Or Safeguards

Fit of the measure to the person/groups fundamental needs and vulnerabilitiesThoroughness and rigour in the implementation of the measurePresence of the capacity to redefine the situation and the measureAppropriate resources to implement the measure


Suggested Criteria For Evaluating The Likely Potency Of Advocacy Or Safeguards

The value base of those implementing the measureCompromise of the measure through the conflicts of the people involvedFatigue, degree of renewal of the measureExtent/strength of the problem to be addressed


Some Possibly Perverse Uses Of The Concept Of Safeguarding

The presumption that life can be safeguarded so well as to eliminate (all) tragedyThat people do not proceed with urgent and valid actions because not all negative eventualities can be safeguarded againstInstallation of weak safeguards as if they were strong safeguards, e.g. boards of visitors, advisory committees, internal complaint systems



Preoccupation with safeguards at the expense of doing things well enough so that safeguards may not be neededNon recognition that safeguards can have their own unintended dysfunctionsNot linking the discussion or implementation of safeguards to a scrupulous examination of the actual dangers present



Emphasis on the mechanics of safeguarding at the expense of the cultivation of the “safeguarding mentality”Implementation of potentially valid safeguards by people who lack the proper perspective and will optimise them


A Global Process To Prepare Safeguards For An Individual Being Served

Discussion with the person about what is important to him/her and what is most needed from the serviceClarification of the vulnerabilities the person may haveIdentification of both the immediate and remote dangers that are or may be present for the person


A Global Process To Prepare Safeguards For An Individual Being Served

Prioritise the dangers the person now or may face with a view to their vulnerabilitiesFor each key area of concern, note the safeguards that may existFor each key area of concern that lacks safeguards, try to imagine measures that would lessen the danger for that person


A Global Process To Prepare Safeguards For An Individual Being Supported

Critically evaluate both the existing and proposed safeguarding measuresIdentify any possible non-adaptive effects that may inadvertently be present in the process of installing, operating, or strengthening safeguards

Documents

Vulnerabilities And Intentional Safeguards Michael J. Kendrick PhD Kendrick Consulting Intl [email protected] Michael