“ A good hazard determination requires both good hazard appraisal and good hazard direction ” ( Carson and Bain, 2008: 156 ) . The purpose of this assignment is to critically measure this statement with mention to my ain pattern experience. With the focal point of this piece of pattern being on kids, this assignment will preponderantly research hazard from the position of kids. The assignment will get down with a brief lineation of the pattern experience that will be referred to and will research the societal, cultural and political constructs that form pattern in relation to hazard. The constructs of hazard, hazard appraisal and hazard direction will be examined along with what makes them good. The assignment will so research how Brearley ‘s ( 1982 ) hazard appraisal was used before looking at theoretical models of contemplation.
The pattern experience that I will be mentioning to throughout this piece of work is the assessment procedure in readying for a Full Assessment Report that had been requested from the Children ‘s Reporter Administration due to concerns for the safety of a kid. During a domestic incident between Mr and Mrs Hassan, their boy Raj ( aged 12 ) was struck on the side of the face by Mr Hassan. As a consequence of bond conditions Mr Hassam was non allowed within a certain distance of the household place and he was non present during the first half of the appraisal procedure. However midway through the assessment procedure Mr Hassam was charged and convicted a Schedule 1 wrongdoer, with bail conditions no longer in topographic point Mr Hassam returned to the household place.
Towards the terminal of the 20th century hazard became a major concern within western society ; Beck ( 1992 ) argues that we live in a hazard society that has an accent on uncertainness and incrimination, and there is no longer a focal point on wining in making something good but where we are forestalling the worst. Parton ( 1996 ) would hold with Beck and believes that globalization has separated society and in bend created more uncertainness within societal and economic life. As a consequence of the blaming civilization professionals are happening themselves avoiding taking hazards and experiencing that they have to support their pattern and hazard determinations ( McLaughlin, 2007 and Barry, 2007 ) .
The media and public incrimination practicians, peculiarly when there is a child decease, and province that they put kids at unneeded high hazard as they fail to step in rapidly plenty. Examples of high profile kid decease enquiry instances include Jasmine Beckford ( 1985 ) , Caleb Ness ( 2003 ) and Baby P ( 2008 ) . Baby P is an first-class illustration of how the media and public incrimination practicians and received high media attending. Media coverage of how risk appraisals and hazard directions have failed along with demands for understating hazards and organizational and professional answerability has constrained the function of a societal worker and The twenty-first Century Review of Social Work ( 2006 ) acknowledges this ( Barry, 2007 ) . It implies that societal work professionals were missing in assurance when it came to taking hazards in what has become a hazard inauspicious society. One of the chief countries highlighted in the study was the demand for a new organizational civilization and attack to put on the line appraisal and hazard direction which would advance virtue ( Scots Executive, 2006 ) .
Official policies and counsel have been developed in recent old ages with the purpose of bettering patterns and knowledge where high hazards can be identified ( DOH, 1991 cited in Parton, 1996 ) . This is apparent in paperss that influenced my pattern and I referred to them before doing hazard determinations, some illustrations include ; Geting it Right for Every Child: Proposal for Action ( Scottish Executive, 2005 ) , Every Child Matters: Change for Children ( HM Government, 2004 ) and It ‘s everyone ‘s occupation to do certain I ‘m alright: Report of the Child Protection Audit and Review ( Scots Executive, 2002 ) .
The word hazard is a complex and comprehensive construct and there is no clear definition when it comes to specifying what would be a low, medium or high hazard ( Stalker, 2003 and Barry, 2007 ) . Many of the jobs that arise during hazard pickings is a consequence of there being no exact definition of hazard ( Titterton, 2005 ) . This in bend creates troubles when specifying definitions of hazard, hazard appraisal and hazard direction.
The Oxford English Dictionary ( 2002 ) describes the noun hazard as a state of affairs that could take to a bad result or the likeliness of something unpleasant occurrence, and the verb hazard as being exposed to danger or loss or act in a manner that something bad could go on. All dictionary definitions will give the word hazard negative significances. Alaszewski and Manthorpe ( 1991 ) would hold with the negative dictionary definitions of hazard and specify it as, “ the possibility that a given class of action will non accomplish its coveted result but alternatively some unsought and unwanted state of affairs will develop. ” Similarly Blackburn ( 2000 ) positions hazard as being a loss or cost as a consequence of uncertainness ( cited in Carson and Bain, 2008 ) .
Carson and Bain ( 2008 ) and Titterton ( 2005 ) disagree with negative significances of the word hazard ; they argue that such definitions are non good plenty as they pose more troubles when taking hazards with people ‘s lives. They both argue that hazard demands to be explained as looking at the possible benefits and besides the possible injuries. Alberg ( 1996 ) provides a utile definition of hazard as, “ the possibility of good and harmful results and the likeliness of their happening in a declared timescale ” ( cited in Titterton, 2005:25 ) .
Hazard appraisal is the phase in hazard determination doing where information on the elements of hazard is collated and assessed, they are normally made to inform hazard direction. Risk appraisal is concerned with roll uping information on the two key hazard elements ; these are known as the results ( besides known as the effects, injury or harm ) and their likeliness ( besides known as opportunity or exposure ) and to measure a hazard we must see both ( Carson and Bain, 2008, Titterton, 2005 ) . The two basic appraisal tools used to measure hazard are ; clinical which involves professional opinion and information from research on hazard factors, and actuarial is based upon statistical computations of hazard and is used in the insurance industry ( Barry, 2007 and Davies, 2008 ) . Although non entirely, actuarial information tends to be used during hazard appraisals and clinical during hazard direction ( Carson and Bain, 2008 ) .
In order to set about a good hazard appraisal we should include all the results that could happen as a consequence of the hazard determination and which could go on in the period that the hazard is being assessed. If an result would go on irrespective of a hazard appraisal being made so it did non go on as a consequence of a hazard determination. The hazard determination must hold made the result more likely or serious ; both the earnestness of the results and their likeliness must be considered ( Carson and Bain, 2008 ) . When measuring the likeliness of a state of affairs it should be based upon the best cognition available and whether the determination would hold been the same had a responsible organic structure ( i.e. SSSC ) had considered it ( Carson and Bain, 2008 ) .
A good hazard appraisal has a intent and this is to research the possible benefits over the possible injuries. If the value of the likely benefits outweighs the value of the likely injuries so we will be able to warrant taking a hazard determination ( Titterton, 2005 ) . We need to be able to warrant taking a hazard before we can larn whether injury will ensue. If injury does ensue so it is non bad hazard appraisal, likewise if a hazard determination leads to successful outcomes we can non state it is good hazard appraisal. A hazard determination demands to be judged on the hazard determination procedures and processs, non by the results ( Carson and Bain, 2008 ) . It could be argued that there are no benefits of taking a hazard and this would be deemed as bad hazard appraisal and must be challenged ( Carson and Bain, 2008 ) .
After a hazard appraisal has been carried out a determination needs to be made on how to pull off the state of affairs. Risk direction is detecting and commanding the dimensions of the proposed hazard into a program to pull off the hazards ; it is involved with implementing, monitoring, act uponing, commanding and reexamining the hazard determination ( Carson and Bain, 2008 ) . Hazard dimensions are characteristics of hazard that could be influenced by the practician, for illustration the available resources to pull off the hazard and uncertainness ( Carson and Bain, 2008 ) . Risk direction besides means doing the most of the possible benefits and including service users in pull offing hazard determinations ( Stalker, 2003 ) .
In order to hold good hazard direction we must be able to do effectual usage of all the dimensions of the hazard appraisal. This includes the clip during and the sum of clip of a hazard determination being made and the clip available to step in if necessary. We need to be able to place people and their accomplishments as a resource and utilize their qualities, cognition and ability to recognize jobs and chances should they originate. We should place and see both positive and negative chances that arise at different phases as we go along a hazard way. Before doing a hazard determination we must research the quality and measure of available cognition and its significance. Knowledge is a signifier of power and this creates grades of control, this includes recognizing our professional, ethical and legal bounds to step in and command a hazard. Good hazard direction is being able to utilize all of these resources nevertheless there is a barrier, they all cost money. Risk direction is political as it is about resources, we require equal resources for a good hazard direction program and deficiency of resources will hold an impact on this ( Carson and Bain, 2008 ) .
Hazard determinations are complex and may be based on undependable or unsure cognition. If injury could non happen so it would non be a hazard, if injuries do happen so determination devising and hazard direction will necessitate to be examined and a hazard determination that was justifiable before the event must stay justifiable after the event. The practician will besides necessitate to demo that any determinations they did do were in line with best current pattern on hazard appraisal and hazard direction. Many hazard determinations will be good irrespective of hapless hazard direction. ( Carson and Bain, 2008 and Davies, 2008 ) .
Risk direction is frequently overshadowed by hazard appraisal, despite the fact that it can merely place a hazard and non decrease it ( Stalker, 2003 and Titterton, 2005 ) . It is of import to give hazard direction more recognition as it can forestall bad hazard appraisal. If a hapless hazard appraisal is made so it can ensue in injury, enquiries and tribunal proceedings. As hazard direction comes after the hazard appraisal has been made it can in turn prevent a hapless hazard appraisal from doing injury ( Carson and Bain, 2008 ) . Besides risk direction concerns the execution of the hazard determination and can therefore protect against the effects of hapless hazard appraisal. In order to do a good hazard determination we therefore require good hazard appraisal and good hazard direction ( Carson and Bain, 2008 ) . Titterton ( 2005 ) argues that hazard appraisal and hazard direction should be interconnected within the same hazard model.
Brearley ‘s ( 1982 ) definition of hazard focal points on the negative results of hazard ( i.e. harm and injury ) nevertheless despite its limitations it is argued that it is relevant as he has provided a model that provides a good starting point for understanding and measuring hazard, and that helps help workers to recognize hazard factors when faced with hazardous state of affairss ( Watson and West, 2006 and Kemshall and Pritchard, 1996 ) . Brearley ‘s hazard appraisal model is synergistic and uses constructs of the systems attack, undertaking centred attack to the actuarial appraisal of hazard. His model identifies two types of jeopardies which he refers to as general predictive jeopardies ( background jeopardies ) and situational jeopardies ( current jeopardies ) ; a jeopardy is the possibility of loss or harm that will ensue in danger. These jeopardies need to be weighed up with the strengths in order to place if a hazard determination has to be made ( Kemshall and Pritchard, 1996 ) .
I incorporated Brearley ‘s ( 1982 ) model with the appraisal trigon ( DOH, 2000 and Aldgate and Rose, 2006 ) during my hazard appraisal and I identified that identified that there were no general prognostic factors for Raj, he was non known to societal work prior to this assault and there was no grounds to propose that there had been any issues in the yesteryear. The situational jeopardies for Raj were ; he had been assaulted by Mr Hassam, his behavior changed and he became withdrawn and angry, poorness and hapless lodging. His strengths were ; he was resilient, he attended and enjoyed school, he openly spoke out about how he felt. The danger for Raj was that he was at hazard of farther physical and/or emotional maltreatment for being unfastened and honest with me after his male parent had warned him non to talk to any professionals.
During my hazard appraisal I had to see how capable Mr Hassam was of farther assailing Raj and how likely it was to go on. I thought about the badness of the results, for illustration if I thought there was a opportunity that the result would be decease so the likeliness would be lower than if I thought the result could be assault. I hence considered the result of my appraisal to be that Mr Hassam could assail Raj once more and although the result could be really serious but I felt that the likeliness of it go oning was really low as Mr Hassam had ne’er been violent towards his boy before and showed true marks of compunction for his actions. However merely because it was highly improbable that Mr Hassam would assail Raj once more did non intend that I could see it a low hazard. An improbable event does non go any more likely simply as it could hold serious results ( Carson and Bain, 2008 ) . During my appraisal I referred to The Children ( Scotland ) Act 1995 as I had a responsibility to safeguard and advance the public assistance of Raj and his public assistance is overriding ( SCLC, 1995 ) , and besides to the values of the SSSC ( 2005 ) , peculiarly codes 4.1 and 4.2.
When sing the hazard period to work within and how we are establishing our appraisal we should analyze research based upon that period. During my hazard appraisal I looked at research on domestic force and kid maltreatment and several surveies show that there is a high association between domestic force and kid maltreatment ( physical and emotional ) ; Morely and Mullender ( 1994 ) found that between 40-60 % of kids are physically assaulted by the culprit and Epsein and Keep ( 1994 ) found that 38 % of kids who called Childline had been assaulted by the culprit. To do the usage of the highest cognition available I besides consulted with my pattern instructor and PTL and considered their recommendations before doing my determination. My hazard determination was that it was safe for Raj to stay in the household place with his male parent, as the possible benefits ( e.g. prior to the assault Raj and his male parent had a good relationship ) outweighed the likely injuries. I was able to work in partnership with Mr and Mrs Hassan and the school and they were all resources that assisted me with placing chances for Raj. On contemplation I felt confident that I had used the resources available to me good, peculiarly research and cognition and I could warrant my hazard determination if injury was to happen and would be able to explicate how I came to my hazard determination.
Brooding pattern involves being able to believe holistically and in bend this includes researching facts and feelings, the cognition and apprehension of the state of affairs and being able to look at positions subjectively and objectively ( Wilson et al, 2008 ) . Schon ( 1983 ) , Kolb ( 1984 ) and Boud et Al ( 1985 ) hold given brooding pattern currency in recent old ages by developing thoughts and utilizing and using them to reflecting on experience and bettering action and pattern ( Brown and Rutter, 2008 ) . I based my brooding histories in pattern on Kolb ‘s ( 1984 ) theoretical account of experiential acquisition. Kolb ‘s theoretical account explores holding concrete pattern experience which we so reflect and observe on, build new thoughts on and so experiment with. His theoretical account emphasises the importance of utilizing observation and proving our contemplation on what we see and experience and being able to construct upon how we experience the existent universe ( Adams et al, 2002 ) . Kolb ‘s theoretical account has helped me understand that acquisition is single and I have to do the connexions to bing cognition, theories and statute law when reflecting on what I have learned.
A figure of self rating questionnaires derived from Kolb ‘s learning rhythm with the purpose of assisting people identify their acquisition manners. I used Honey and Mumford ‘s ( 1992 ) larning manner questionnaire to detect that I am a brooding scholar ; I will watch and reflect, gather relevant informations and analyze all the possible options available before doing a decison. Using my learning manner as a reflector and integrating Kolb ‘s theoretical account of larning I was able to confidently do a hazard determination for Raj. I used the supervising procedure to discourse my acquisition manner and how this assisted me when I put programs of action in topographic point with the Hassam household and how I went through the rhythm of experience, contemplation, conceptualization and experimentation ( Parker, 2006 ) .
To reason this piece of work has proved that in order to hold a good hazard determination so we must hold a good hazard appraisal along with good hazard direction and my ain pattern experience was integrated throughout as an illustrative. Today ‘s hazard society has a deficiency of assurance in professionals and this has an impact when they need to do hazard determinations, although after utilizing hazard and brooding models along with supervising I was confident to be able to do my hazard determination and warrant it. With the right policies, processs and support professionals will be able to do good hazard determinations and experience confident when making so.