Introduction
This essay aims to compare and contrast the Brearley and Kelly models of risk assessment, two frameworks widely discussed in the field of social work for evaluating risks in practice. Risk assessment is a cornerstone of social work, ensuring the safety and well-being of vulnerable individuals while balancing professional judgment with structured approaches. The Brearley model, developed in the 1980s, offers a systematic approach to identifying hazards and strengths, while the Kelly model, emerging later, integrates a more dynamic and contextual understanding of risk. This essay will explore the key features of each model, analyse their strengths and limitations, and consider their applicability in modern social work practice. By examining these frameworks, the discussion will highlight their relevance to decision-making and the complexities of managing risk in diverse settings.
Overview of the Brearley Model
The Brearley model, introduced by Paul Brearley in 1982, provides a structured framework for assessing risk in social work, particularly in the context of adult social care. It categorises risk into four key components: predisposing factors (long-term issues increasing vulnerability), precipitating factors (immediate triggers of risk), perpetuating factors (elements sustaining the risk), and protective factors (strengths or resources mitigating risk) (Brearley, 1982). This model is notable for its clarity and logical breakdown, enabling practitioners to systematically identify and evaluate risks. For example, in working with an elderly client, a social worker might identify chronic illness as a predisposing factor and a recent fall as a precipitating event, thus forming a comprehensive risk profile.
However, the Brearley model has limitations. It tends to focus heavily on individual factors, potentially overlooking systemic or environmental influences such as socioeconomic conditions. Furthermore, its static nature may not fully accommodate the fluid, evolving circumstances often encountered in social work practice. Despite this, its structured approach remains valuable, particularly for novice practitioners seeking a clear starting point in risk assessment.
Overview of the Kelly Model
In contrast, the Kelly model, developed by George Kelly through his personal construct theory and adapted into risk assessment practices in social work, adopt a more individualistic and dynamic perspective. While not originally designed for risk assessment, Kelly’s theory, introduced in 1955, has been applied to understand how individuals perceive and interpret risks based on their personal constructs or belief systems (Kelly, 1955). In social work, this translates into a focus on the subjective experiences of service users, encouraging practitioners to explore how clients and families make sense of risk in their unique contexts. For instance, a client might perceive a specific behaviour as safe due to cultural norms, even if it appears risky to the practitioner.
The strength of the Kelly model lies in its emphasis on collaboration and empathy, fostering a deeper understanding of the client’s worldview. Yet, it can be critiqued for its lack of a clear, systematic structure, which may pose challenges in high-stakes situations requiring quick decisions. Additionally, its reliance on subjective interpretation risks inconsistency across practitioners, potentially undermining reliability in assessments.
Comparative Analysis
Comparing the two models reveals distinct approaches to risk assessment. The Brearley model prioritises objectivity and structure, offering a checklist-style framework that ensures consistency and thoroughness—ideal for complex cases where multiple factors must be considered. Conversely, the Kelly model champions subjectivity, valuing the personal narratives of service users and promoting a person-centred approach, which aligns with contemporary social work values (BASW, 2021). However, while Brearley’s framework may feel rigid in dynamic scenarios, Kelly’s approach risks being overly abstract, lacking the concrete guidance needed in urgent situations.
In terms of applicability, the Brearley model is arguably more suited to formal settings requiring documentation and accountability, such as safeguarding investigations. The Kelly model, on the other hand, shines in therapeutic or long-term interventions where building trust and understanding is paramount. Both models, therefore, address different facets of risk assessment, with their effectiveness often depending on the context of their application.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Brearley and Kelly models offer contrasting yet complementary perspectives on risk assessment in social work. Brearley’s structured, analytical approach provides a solid foundation for identifying and categorising risks, while Kelly’s focus on personal constructs encourages a nuanced, empathetic understanding of individual experiences. Each model has its strengths and limitations, with Brearley excelling in systematic evaluation and Kelly fostering deeper client engagement. For social work practitioners, integrating elements of both frameworks could enhance practice, ensuring a balance between structure and personalisation. Indeed, understanding these models underscores the importance of flexibility in risk assessment, as no single approach can fully address the multifaceted nature of human needs. This comparison highlights the need for ongoing training and critical reflection to navigate the complexities of risk in diverse social work contexts.
References
- Brearley, C. P. (1982) Risk and Social Work: Hazards and Helping. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
- British Association of Social Workers (BASW) (2021) The Code of Ethics for Social Work. BASW.
- Kelly, G. A. (1955) The Psychology of Personal Constructs. Norton & Company.
