Distorting child development, time to rebelance protective factors with risk by University of Strathclyde

1. Gavin Heron
gavin.heron@strath.ac.uk
Distorting child development: time to
rebalance protective factors with risk

2. Background
• Munro (2010, p.1135) argues that ‘current
strategies to manage risk in child protection
are, paradoxically, making it harder for
professionals to learn how to protect children
better’.
• ‘the rhetoric of official guidance and policy
statements resonates with the presumption of
controllability (Hood, 2014, p.36)

3. Applying Protective factors to practice
• protective factors- buffering effect
• risk in social work -associated with negativity,
adversity & poor outcomes
• more protective factors = better outcomes
• aim- reduce risk and increase protective
factors
• Problem- identifying risk and protective
factors is difficult

4. Complex work environment
• Wilkins (2015, p. 405) found that social
workers and managers were able to identify
risk, but had difficulty balancing it with
protective factors (note: used vignettes)
• making judgements- excessive workloads,
stress and limited resources, anxieties in
meeting deadlines (Taylor et al., 2008) and
fear of being blamed (Fleming et al. 2015).
• managerialism & risk management

5. Methodology
Research questions:
• to what extent are protective factors
discussed by professionals in relation to risk
from children who present a serious danger to
other people;
• is critical thinking useful in understanding the
way protective factors are discussed by
professionals.

6. • Case study approach
• 30 multidisciplinary meetings (94
professionals)
• 15 boys& 15 girls (12-18 years)
• majority are white British
• meetings- 5-10 professionals
• Duration- 2 hours

7. Coding of data
• Framework of critical thinking (Maclellan & Soden, 2001)
1. unpacking concepts—ability to unpack or break down ideas,
concepts or
theories;
2. recognising contradictions—differentiating between viewpoints
and counterarguments;
3. development—explaining a phenomenon, joining ideas together
to form lines of
arguments;
4. providing evidence—supporting or justifying assertions;
5. examining implications of evidence—generating hypotheses about
consequences and examining the relationships between key factors;
6. alternative interpretation—questioning or challenging an
interpretation of the evidence and offering an alternative.

8. 4 domains:
• risk of harm
• actual harm
• children
• other people
6 categories of critical thinking are used with

9. Results
• 1187 instances of critical thinking from the 30
meetings.:
• actual harm (n: 612, 51.5%)
• risk of harm (n: 438, 37%)
• protective factors (n:137, 11.5%).
• professionals discuss protective factors and
risk with a ratio of approximately one to nine.

10. comparison between the children and
other people
44%
42%
14%
Children
Risk of Harm Total
Actual Harm Total
Protective Factors Total
32%
58%
10%
Other People
Risk of Harm Total
Actual Harm Total
Protective Factors Total

11. • for the children similar frequency between the risk of harm (n: 219,
44%) and actual harm (n: 208, 42%) with much fewer instances for
protective factors (n: 67, 14%).
• for other people critical thinking is more frequent for actual harm
(n: 404, 58%) than risk of harm (219, 32%) with much fewer
instances for protective factors (n: 70, 10%).
• critical thinking about protective factors is seldom linked to risk of
harm or actual harm either in relation to the children or other
people.
• disconnect between protective factors and risk when professionals
discuss children who present a serious threat to other people.

12. gender comparison
• risk to other people- protective factors higher for
boys (n: 57) than girls (n: 13)
• severity of risks that boys present to other people
(e.g. physical assaults, sexual violence).
• risk relates to the children- protective factors
higher for girls (n: 47) than boys (n: 20)
• girls present more risk to themselves both in
terms of their own actions (e.g. self-harming,
drug misuse) and danger from other people (e.g.
sexual abuse).

13. Protective Factors
1
2
34
23
6
1
4
2
33
22
7
2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Unpacking Concepts Recognising Contradictions Development Profiding Evidence Implications of Evidence Alternative Interpretation
Protective Factors
Children Other People

14. Discussion
• level of disconnect exists between protective
factors and risk
• Horlick-Jones (2005) has criticised the
‘saturation’ of risk in UK government policy

15. linking protective factors and risk using
the categories of critical thinking
Critical Thinking
unpacking concepts
recognising contradictions
development
providing evidence
examining implications of evidence
alternative interpretation
Protective
factor
Risk

16. Ritual thinking
• Menzies Lyth’s (1959) culture of ritual task
performance by nursing staff in their attempt to
defend against the anxieties inherent to decision-
making and working closely with patients.
• Taylor et al. (2008) found the splitting of activities
by social workers and the associated
performance of ritual tasks were an attempt to
experience more reassurance and lower anxiety
when undertaking certain activities.

17. • Disconnecting protective factors from risk
might be a form of conceptual splitting by
professionals which prevents them from
facing the complexities of service users’ lives,
thereby reducing the need for critical thinking

18. Sustaining ritual thinking
• limited resources are less pressurised in a
system that: (1) constrains the identification
and complexity of protective factors; and, (2)
creates a culture whereby not applying
protective factors actually reduces the
likelihood of practitioners being blamed when
something goes wrong.

19. Food for thought!
• It is somewhat ironic that for many
practitioners, it is professionally less risky to
simply focus on risk.