Home Page | About the Free Play Network | Join the Free Play Network | Links

Free Play Network homepage

*

Child Protection Discussion Forum

*

Places of Woe: Places of Possibility Photo Exhibition

*

PLACES for PLAY: Photo Exhibition

*

Policy

*

Playwork Practice

*

Designing for Play

*

Play at School

*

Risk and Safety

*

Play Publications


PLAYLINK

PLAYLINK / Free Play Network

No Risk, No Play?

Online Discussion Forum on Risk and Play

Edited Highlights

This joint PLAYLINK / Freeplay Network Risk and Play online discussion forum - was open for questions and comments from June - July 2007- prompted a range of interesting comments and perspectives. We wanted to capture and disseminate some of the key content in accessible form.

You can also view the full text of the discussion forum at:

www.freeplaynetwork.org.uk/playlink/risk/index2.php

We also want to take this opportunity to thank all contributors, but in particular the lead interlocutors who gave their time and expertise freely. They were: Professor David Ball, Paul Collings, Robin Sutcliffe.

Nicola Butler, Free Play Network
Bernard Spiegal, PLAYLINK

Why risk?

It's worth remembering why attitudes to, and understandings about, risk matter. There is a danger that discussions about risk become focused on, and are reduced to, the merely technical. But how we think about and respond to risk in part defines what it is we think it is to be human.

Robin said it well:

You cannot be creative without taking a risk.

You cannot discover your limits without taking a risk.

You cannot declare or consumate a relationship without taking a risk.

You cannot be passionate about anything without taking a risk.

You cannot lead without taking a risk.

Physical risk is only a small part of the issue.

The need for risk crosses all boundaries (much like play itself).

It is not gender specific, though the types of risk favoured may be.

It is not racially specific, though different cultures do have different attitudes.

It has nothing to do with ability or disability. Indeed it is probably more important the less able bodied a person is.

Perhaps most importantly (and I will finish with this) the fulfilment of the individual is dependant on their capacity to take risks, which makes the capacity to manage and enjoy risk taking a vital building block of cohesive and vibrant communities.

Some questions and answers

Paul posed some questions, David and Bernard responded. Paul introduced his questions thus:

It seems to me that there has been much improvement in the last few years regarding the acceptance of risk in play provision and the comments on the website reflect this. The legal environment has also changed - in no small part to the efforts of my 3 co-facilitators (amongst others). However, there is still a problem at the front end, with those responsible for procuring play space provision being nervous particularly regarding litigation fears and general complaints. Maybe a few open questions might open the debate up about what still needs to be done.

PC. Should play spaces offer more or less risk than is freely available outside the play space?

DB. I think playgrounds are areas where risk has been more carefully 'managed'. That is, far more thought has gone into the level of risk than has in other settings, and generally the level of risk is lower on playgrounds than in countless places commonly frequented by children - like streets, railway stations, river banks etc. This is supported by the statistics which show playgrounds to be oases of comparative safety.

BS. I'm not sure that thinking in terms of 'more' or 'less' risk in respect of designated play space or general playable space is the best way of approaching the general question of what's an acceptable level of risk in different contexts.

I can't find a way of thinking about this without returning to the general approach that asks us to justify a particular judgment-based risk level against a judgment-based view about the potential benefits. In other words, it's not a question of being in or out of a playspace, but of assessing risks in the context of wished-for benefits. I'm not sure that introducing an additional category - i.e. in or out of a play space - helps us. It may be a distraction. To which, I add, 'I think'. I'd welcome comment on this - perhaps if only to highlight the flaws that I have not seen in my own argument.

PC. What relevance do the standards En1176/7 have for natural play spaces?

DB. I don't think BSEN has much relevance to natural play areas. I never found it much use for dealing with traditional climbing frames either. I put this down to the near impossibility of writing a standard to describe something which is so complex, and which must consider benefits as well as safety.

BS. My understanding is that the standards only apply to things designated 'play equipment' and then, most importantly, the standards are not mandatory. The risk assessment process has primacy when making judgments about risk. For more on this, do look at authoritative legal advice - Counsel Opinion - at www.playlink.org.uk. There is a link from the Home Page.

PC. How do we protect local authority officers from the fear of finger pointing and witch hunts if things go wrong?

DB. By providing them with authoritative documents like Managing Risk in Play Provision. I handle quite a few play-related legal cases as an expert witness, usually for the local authority. Pretty well every case has been assisted by the production of MRPP in court which ushers in a breath of fresh air. One of the problems in court cases is that expert witnesses for the claimant tend to be either from an engineering-type background or to be ex factory inspectors. For this reason their risk assessments fail to take account of the benefits of the activity, a balance which should always be made. For example, a fireman's pole could not be justified in a playground because of the associated risk, unless the benefit were factored in. The same applies to pretty well everything else on playgrounds, but surprisingly risk assessments seldom mention benefits at all! This makes me wonder how decisions about acceptability are being made. But to get back to the point, providers can help themselves by referring to key documents like MRPP in their policy statements, and making it clear that they are making the best judgements they can about the trade-off between risk of injury and benefits of play (fun, exercise, learning to play, learning about risk etc) in providing the play opportunity.

BS. David's comments need to be taken on board. But to reiterate: providers must, in my view, work within the context of a formally agreed policy that states clearly the relationship of risk to play, the benefits that accrue from risk-taking, and that it is one of the objectives of play provision to create the conditions that offer children and young people opportunities to take acceptable levels of risk.

There is no question in my mind that the policy is necessary; but real gains at every level are more likely if a process of formulating the policy is undertaken - one based on the exploration of ideas, not simply 'training'. A process that involves, for example, Health and Safety Officers, Planners, Housing, Councillors and so forth. I do now unashamedly ask you to look at the PLAYLINK web site under 'policy' for more on this.

From a slightly different tack: it is not helpful for people committed to play to complain about a blame game, and then participate in it ourselves - which occurs at least sometimes. Individual Officers, not least H&S Officers, in many cases work within a context that is risk-averse and risk-illiterate, where they have few or no grounds for believing that their employers will support them in the event that their reasonable judgment becomes subject to press or parental scrutiny.

Whilst it is the case that some H&S people we have encountered seem not to be comfortable with the concepts with which they have to deal, it is equally the case we have had the good fortune to engage with H&S Officers who have brought to play and their authorities a clarity about risk, benefits and objectives that has been of real benefit. To summarise: we need to create the context where ideas and concepts about risk, risk and play can be explored and elucidated. Rooted understanding and value-based commitment are foundational requirements.

PC. What should the role of the playground inspector be in play space provision? Does it need to change?

DB. I think that playground inspectors need to be far more philosophical about what they are doing. I suspect they tend to focus on making measurements of equipment and comparisons with BSEN, which is more about self-protection (litigation avoidance) than supporting the needs of the child. Even so, this is only a tiny part of the job and has little to do with the purpose of play and maybe not much impact on safety either. The difficult part is getting the balance between benefit and risk at a level which is in accord with the aims of the playground. This inter alia requires the inspector to compare the playground against the aims set out in the provider's play policy. Failure to do this may mean that the playground is inspected against the inspector's, usually undisclosed, personal criteria, rather than that of the authority. Thus, you may not get what you want.

BS. Once again, David's comments are extremely pertinent. One extra point: there is variability in the views of Inspectors, even when hailing from the same organisation. The judgment you get can sometimes depend on which Inspector turns up on the day. Providers need to be clear and confident about their aims and objectives, and put themselves in the position to challenge judgments with which they disagree. This leads back to policy and policy making, points made above.

PC. What do people think about the subjectivity of risk assessments? Can they or should they be standardised?

DB. This is a very difficult area indeed, and I'm struggling myself to come to some answer. The question applies way beyond the realm of playgrounds of course. There are many difficulties and I'm not sure if standardisation is possible and I wonder if maybe it isn't even desirable. If we standardised it, that might lock us into some non-ideal world, just as I believe parts of the BSEN have done. On the other hand, there are intriguing questions, e.g. if you look at a wobbly, rustic bridge in a playground its obvious there's a foreseeable risk and if such existed in a factory or an office it would be regarded as 'high', but a) we allow the things on playgrounds and b) the statistics show that the risk of serious (life endangering) injury is very low. So what looks like a high risk subjectively, turns out to be a low risk objectively, no doubt because kids can cope with these things. So should inspectors be paying more heed to their objective knowledge or their subjective feelings? This I think also reinforces the need for playground inspectors to have had training in child development and not just, say, engineering. But it's odd, when I get a letter from a solicitor asking if I would be an expert, it usually starts "We are looking for an engineer...", which triggers my brain to ask "Why?".

BS. There's a difference between standardising a procedure and attempting to do the impossible, standardise a judgment.

I'm not sure - that's genuinely 'not sure' - if one procedure is better than another, but for sure, a 'standardised judgment' is a contradiction in terms.

PLAYLINK believes that what is required is judgment based on an 'informed subjectivity'; that is, roughly, judgments that recognises that there are facts to be considered; that facts need to be interpreted in the light of values and the provision's objectives - e.g. what does a broken arm sustained in a playground 'mean'? How serious is such an injury?

This does not mean that judgment based on informed subjectivity is either 'random', or a response to which side of the bed I got out of that morning. It is bringing to bear a quality of mind to the particular question in hand. It is, in my view, a dangerous illusion to believe that judgments about risk levels is a matter of objectivity; or that objectivity is the 'gold standard' that we seek, but is somehow elusive. It is in fact the search for fool's gold. We are required only to make reasoned and reasonable judgments - that they may be proved wrong on occasion, is another matter.

Who's an expert?

The absence of risky or challenging experiences from the diet of so many kids is frightening, but while some of the blame is attributable to parents - a point made in the discussion - the plot is thicker.

Since 1990 I have acted as expert witness in court cases, many dealing with playground accidents. There I have encountered a band of experts recruited by the parents who have been prepared to express the most absurd rubbish about playground safety. A fair number of these people were ex-factory people with no knowledge of play, but some it has to be said were from the play sector and should have known better. In general there's a failure to understand that risk assessment of playgrounds is not synonymous with comparison with BSEN because BSEN is not based on risk assessment, yet risk assessment is what is required by law, not BSEN. Thus, these characters end up making mindless measurements and comparing them with BSEN to prove negligence.This is in most cases total nonsense.
Comment by David Ball.

Children "doing risk"

Neil rightly comments that given the opportunity, people tend to position themselves at a chosen point on a spectrum from risk-averse to risk-embracing, in different spheres of life. Tim Gill calls this "setting one's own risk thermostat".

While this discussion forum has, quite understandably, focussed on the policy dilemmas inherent in trying to provide physically challenging play opportunities in the face of an allegedly risk-averse and litigious culture, I think it's also important not to lose sight of the multiple meanings of risk for children at play.

The adrenalin buzz that comes from deliberately doing something you know could result in getting hurt is one, but only one of these meanings, and not necessarily the commonest in children's day-to-day play. Other meanings foreground the social aspect of risk-taking, including: management of the risk of being told off by adults, or of ridicule (or worse) from other players; performance of "risky-enough" routines as a group bonding activity; and playing with the actual idea of risk in dramatic role play (as children will also play with ideas of death, sex, power and so forth).

Children are part of contemporary "risk society" and are inoculated by exposure to a variety of risk discourses from an early age; this might mean that, given the freedom to choose, they nowadays set their personal risk thermostats a few notches lower than would have been the case a few decades ago. It would be nice to have evidence one way or the other on this point.

While this observation in no way detracts from the importance of providing more challenging play spaces, it does provide some grounds for cautious optimism: children may be better than we think at finding as much scope for risk-taking as they need, whatever environment they find themselves in.
Posted by: Mark Gladwin, Play Officer, Bradford EYCS

Robin: Mark, what an excellent comment. I do completely agree. We should be holistic about risk and not just concentrate on physical risks. Personal security comes into this arena as well. Cars have been mentioned as an inhibitor to children's freedom, but I believe that personal security may be almost as significant, although I suspect that the risks are much less. Children have to feel comfortable to enjoy risks of all varieties if they are to lead fulfilled lives.
Posted by: Robin Sutcliffe

To view the full text of the discussion forum click here

Facilitators

To receive notification of future PLAYLINK and Free Play Network events:

Free Play Network, 129 Lancaster Road, New Barnet, Hertfordshire, EN4 8AJ. Tel 020 8440 9276.