Stephen A. Webb

Glasgow Caledonian University, Scotland

This lecture is divided into three parts that focus on:

(a) Risk Management(b) Risk Regulation(c) Blame Culture

Little Britain character Vicky Pollard

The "don't-blame-me" mentality personified by Vicky Pollard - the Little Britain character who refuses to accept responsibility for anything - is becoming more prevalent, according to a new study.Researchers say that young people increasingly believe that their fate is out of their hands and that parents, schools, government or bad luck are to blame for their misfortunes.

Exasperated bank manager: "Ms Pollard, despite having no job, you've run up debts of £50,000 on two dozen credit cards. This considerable sum has been squandered on video games, contraband cigarettes, a wardrobe of genuine designer fakes and three weeks of hard drinking in Torrevieja."

Vicky Pollard: "Yeah, but no, but no but yeah, but... wot 'appened was it wasn't me, it was them banks, all their cheap plastic. Don't go giving me the evils. Lloyds HIV made me 'ave it. NatWestlife told me I must. Anyway, Destiny's got loads more loans than me. She bought Posh Spice's knickers. I ain't never done nuffink. It weren’t meh”

risk management is concerned with collective or institutional responses to risk situations in social work.

Risk management is about systems, procedures and guidelines and their operationalization in social work agencies.

With the agency there is shared awareness and understanding within the authority of: – the nature and extent of the risks it faces; – the extent and categories of risks regarded as acceptable (the authority should formulate a sound policy on its threshold to risk); – the likelihood and potential impacts of the risks materialising; and – its ability to reduce the incidence and impact on the organisation of risks that do materialise; Here the focus is on the IMPACT OF RISK

The social care agency ensures that there is regular and ongoing monitoring and reporting of risk including early warning mechanisms; Here the focus is on the MONITORING AND REPORTING OF RISK

Within the social care agency an appropriate assessment is made of the cost of operating particular controls relative to the benefit obtained in managing the related risk; Here the emphasis is on a cost-benefit analysis of managing RISK

The social care agency or the authority conducts, at least annually, a review of the effectiveness of the system of internal control in place; Here the focus is on reviewing and annual monitoring (this sometimes includes performance reviews)

The social care agency or the authority reports publicly on the results of the review, and explains the action it is taking to address any significant concerns that it has identified. Here the emphasis is on stake-holder INVOLVEMENT

1. Predictive Hazards (i.e. those hazards one might expect from any individual in similar circumstances. Hazards such as - mental health problems - physical frailty).

2. Specific Hazards (i.e. hazards, specific to the individual's own situation such

3. Strengths (i.e. what is there in the situation to the individual's advantage?).

4. Dangers (i.e. potentially undesirable results from specific hazards).

We can identify a number of core components associated with risk management in social work. These include: Identifying risks, analysing risks, evaluating and ranking risks, and treating risks as part of what is called MANAGED CARE PROGRAMMES

The Department of Health has been a key mover and shaker in the development of risk management systems in social work agencies. The Department of Health state that“Risk management should be recognised as an integral part of good practice and should be part of the organization’s culture. It should be integrated into its philosophy, practices and business plans rather than be viewed or practiced as a separate programme. When this is achieved, risk management becomes the business of everyone in the organisation.”

EXECUTIVE COMMAND/CONTROLBoard level responsibility for risk management is clearly defined and there are clear lines of individual accountability for managing risk throughout theorganisation, leading to the Board.

The organization’s senior management has defined and documented its strategy for managing risks, including objectives for, and its commitment to, risk management. The risk management strategy is relevant to theorganization’s strategic context and its goals, objectives and the nature of its business. Management ensures that the strategy is understood, implemented and maintained at all levels of the organisation.

A committee structure is in place, which supports the risk management accountability arrangements within the organisation and ensures that allsignificant risks are properly considered and communicated to the Board.

An agreed process for reporting, managing, analysing and learning fromadverse incidents is in place, in accordance with social care guidance.An agreed process for reporting, managing, analysing and learning fromcomplaints and claims is in place, in accordance with NHS guidance.

A risk management process is embedded throughout the organisation at all levels, including the Board, with key indicators being used to demonstrate performance. The whole system of risk management is continuously monitored and reviewed by management and the Board in order to learn and make improvements to the system.

Social work is increasingly regulated because of fears or anxieties about risk. Risk management systems are just one method of regulating social work practice.

Risk Regulation is defined as governmental interference with market or social processes to control potential adverse consequences to health or social issues'. Risk regulation includes (1) information gathering; (2) standard setting and (3) behavioural change.

They analyse risk regulation in terms of regimes, providing a powerful model for understanding risk management in social work. Analyzing regulation in terms of 'regimes' (information gathering; standard setting and behavioural change) allows us to see the rich, multi-dimensional nature of risk regulation in social work. Focusing not just on how social workers seek to reduce risk, but how social work itself is seen as a risky business and how social workers have to be regulated. (GSCC code of conduct)

As a good case study for understanding the regulation of risk we can focus on paedophiles released from custody is used. This will help us explore the strengths and weaknesses of various approaches to risk management and the idea of "blame culture".

The first being the adoption of better communication systems (typically called for in public inquiries such as the Victoria Climbie Inquiry) and more collegial behaviour among the various public sector bureaucracies involved (social services, police, probation, psychiatry) in the case management of released offenders. This strategy can aid the risk management process by increasing information flow between public agencies and, increasingly, trusted third-sector voluntary organizations.

The second response is the adoption of more formal written procedures or checklists for risk assessment and management of ex-offenders. The purpose of such protocols is to improve risk decision making, particularly in allocating scarce resources. They also serve the important purpose of limiting blame by forming the basis of a procedural defense for professional practitioners if registered offenders committed further offenses.

A third strategy, is the classic “not in my backyard”, whereby local authorities refuse to provide public housing for ex-offenders in their communities. (This strategy is sometimes called the "silo-effect" in which public sector authorities effectively try to pass the problem around from one to the other, truancy offers another good example of this) Here social services and housing organizations have to shoulder increased burdens because a bias toward conservative risk assessment by local police and probation officials (seeking to protect themselves from blame in the event of reoffense) lead to a large number of released sex offenders.

So why are risk management and regulation regimes increasingly hardened in social work? Contemporary social care reforms have occurred in a particular historical and social context, and arguably one of the features of that context has been the development of a climate of greater suspicion and challenge for social care agencies. Social workers repeatedly observe that they have to "watch their back" or are constantly being held accountable for their decisions.

Why has Blame Culture become so pervasive over the past decade in social work? There are arguably two reasons why this has occurred over the past decade in the UK

Popular trust in various kinds of public sector institutions, such as social work, has declined over the past decade, with correspondingly growing suspicion of individuals in positions of authority or expertise. Mary Douglas (1982) claims that increasing egalitarian or sectarian cultural biases in western-type societies since 1960s have created more pressure to blame those at the top of powerful corporations for the harm they do to the powerless.. The power of the "service-user" might be part of this explanation, in a world where everyone wants to make "rights claims" even though they may often be contradictory.

This claim relates to an increasing disposition to ‘negativity bias’ in society in a number of advanced democracies. By negativity bias is meant the commonly-observed cognitive tendency to pay more attention to negative than to positive information and to value losses more highly than gains of an equivalent amount. Perhaps we can understand the post Iraq situation as based on a politics of fear and anxiety around security and terrorism, rather than optimism. Here there is a political tendency for dissatisfaction to produce and shape citizens opinions and beliefs.