The relevance of risk work theory to practice: the case of statutory social work and the risk of radicalisation in the UK

Abstract

EDITORIALThe relevance of risk work theory to practice: the case of statutory social work and the risk of radicalisation in the UK Statutory social work is in the business of risk work. The work involves decision making about risky events and situations and yet we know very little about how this operates in an everyday practical sense. The risk work associated with terrorism and radicalisation concerns best illustrates this. The PREVENT statutory duty was sanctioned mid 2015 for a range of UK professionals, including social workers, to pay 'due regard to preventing terrorism'. The duty has contributed to a recalibration of statutory social work practice, towards practices such as counter terrorist policing and security services. Social workers are caught up in 'anticipatory risk work' and find themselves working in a 'pre-crime' space. This is now an everyday practice issue, with practitioners required to help to 'offset' terrorist crime. To date, this recalibration has lacked critical debate by and for social workers. This editorial examines the ethical and practical implications for practitioners and families affected by claims of 'radicalisation risk' and 'extremism risk' to extend our risk thinking and offer new practical and ethical approaches to risk work. To do so, the article engages with new forms of theorising offered in this special edition. The article concludes with a set of practical and ethics-oriented suggestions for refining risk work in the area of radicalisation and extremism.

Between vulnerability and risk? Mental health in UK counter-terrorism

“…The very setting up the hubs as part of an increased counter-terrorism focus on mental health within Prevent, as well as the hubs' movement towards clearer inclusion in the more 'hard security'-oriented Pursue suggest a certain direction of travel: Towards mental health vulnerability gradually becoming part of the conceptual domain of terrorism-related risk, and being addressed as such within the UK counter-terrorism system (see also Holden, 2017;Stanley, 2018).…”

Developing a sociology of risk work in client-facing contexts: an editorial

“…In this section we provide a brief introduction to and overview of the special issue articles. This current issue (volume 20: 1-2) contains four original research articles (Chivers, 2018;Hautomäki, 2018;Iversen, Broström, & Ulander, 2018;Spendlove, 2018), alongside a tribute to the contribution of Tom Horlick-Jones to risk research (Alaszewski, 2018) -which we have placed at the start of the issue as Tom's work is one central root of 'risk work' as an object of study -and a practice-oriented guest editorial by the outgoing Chief Social Worker of the city of Birmingham, England (Stanley, 2018), which considers the potential of more theoretical work to inform client-facing practice. Two further articles submitted for the special issue were published in an earlier issue (due to production reasons) and these (Farre et al, 2017;Turnbull, Prichard, Pope, Brook, & Rowsell, 2017) are also included in this overview.…”

“…At the end of this special edition, we have included a practice review, by Stanley (2018) who applies the theories of risk work that have been further developed in this special issue to questions of social work practice. Across different academic cultures, there is a growing interest in the implications or impact of the research that social scientists do.…”

Risk-Laden Working Lives of Child Protection Social Workers in South Africa

“…One group of social workers that is particularly at risk for negative outcomes are those employed in the child protection practice setting, tasked with the statutory duty to protect children in need of care and protection (McFadden, Campbell & Taylor, 2014;Truter, Theron & Fouché, 2014Truter, Fouché & Theron, 2017). This group of social workers is commonly known as child and welfare workers (Griffiths & Royse, 2017;Schelbe, Radey & Panisch, 2017;Travis et al, 2016); frontline workers (Jones, 2001), designated social workers (Bosman-Sadie, Corrie & Swanepoel, 2013;Truter et al, 2018); statutory social workers (Lombard & Kleijn, 2006;Stanley, 2018) and child protection social workers, or child welfare protective services workers (Conrad & Kellar-Guenther, 2006;Littlechild, 2005;Tavormina & Clossey, 2017). For the purpose of this paper, the term child protection social worker (CPSW) will be used.…”

“…The statutory duties rendered by child protection social workers (CPSWs) are analogous worldwide and the aim is to prevent child abuse by rendering prevention and early intervention services, or intervening on a statutory level once abuse is reported or suspected. Statutory services include investigating allegations of child abuse and neglect; removing and safeguarding children who are in need of care and protection; recommending future placement options for children to the court; and rendering family reunification services (Bosman-Sadie et al, 2013;Griffiths & Royse, 2017;Hodgkin, 2002;Schelbe et al, 2017;Stanley, 2018).…”