Social Work for Sociologists: Theory and Practice

Moving from risk to Safety ● 79

doing business with, and we start our work from a position that every family
has something to bring to the work, we more effectively invite participation
(Keddell 2014; Turnell and Edwards 1999). Families can tell us about what
could help, however small an idea or suggestion. They can help us locate
resources in the family system that can be marshaled into strengths and pro-
tective factors for children. This attitude takes seriously the social work value
of self-determination by allowing the family to have significant influence over
their own lives. This can create safety for the child, as well as respect the rights
of parents (Keddell 2014).
Some social workers will still prefer a more traditional deficit approach
to risk practice, where the defining of risk remains a professional task; per-
haps this feels safer for them (Stanley 2013). Myths about strengths and safety
approaches as naïve and Pollyannaish continue to be fueled by catastrophizing
presentations of risk, aided by discourses of scandal politics (Ferguson 2004).
It is important to note that neither approach means that all children can,
or should, remain with their parents. Where there are no signs of safety, for
example, risk is scaled very high by all involved, and when there is low moti-
vation and confidence from parents, rapid removal can occur. However, these
types of approaches ensure that families are assessed more fairly and realisti-
cally regarding their ability to offer good enough parenting, and an oppor-
tunity to engage in future change is proffered. Others argue that the signs of
safety approach does not take adequate account of structural and material
disadvantage affecting the lives of child protection clients (Keddell 2015);
this criticism should be taken into account in each situation. Neverthe-
less, strengths and safety approaches lead human service workers to actively
include and respect the agency of clients in managing their own lives; this
holds significant potential for responding to risk in ethical ways, particularly
around the ethical imperative of “nonintervention”—that is, using the least
intrusive interventions first. Acting unethically or misusing power easily hap-
pens if practitioners cannot or will not practice reflectively, that is, will not
stop to reflect on “what informs the way I think about risk and need, danger,
safety, resiliency, and strengths?”

Pulling the Threads Together

Of course, the risks to children cannot always be mitigated by a safety or
strengths approach. There is no magic bullet. As we are writing this chapter,
England is reeling from two child abuse scandals. Little Daniel Pelka’s death
was shocking. He was four years old and was beaten and starved to death.
Two-year-old Keanu Williams was also found starved and neglected. Both
suffered horrendously at the hands of people who should have loved and