A participatory approach to risk and potential analysis? A practical example from a national association
veröffentlicht:
- Thema
- Prävention und Kindeswohl
- Schlagworte
- Kinderrechte • Partizipation • Schutzkonzept
BKJ | Paula G. Vidal
Autumn 2024: A youth association launches a safeguarding process at national level via the “Start2Act” funding project. The association’s steering group develops a participatory risk and potential analysis for the following spring. This practical example is described in detail below.
By Verena Schmidt
Verena Schmidt is a Mediator and Specialist for Prevention and Intervention in Sexualised Violence. She works for a youth association that focuses on anti-racism as the Project Lead for a prevention initiative and advises organisations on safeguarding processes.
Foto: Privat
Why should you carry out a (good) risk and potential analysis in the first place? Let’s imagine a safeguarding policy is like a pot of stew that fills everyone up and is enjoyed by as many people as possible. We could simply use the top-rated recipe from the internet. However, to make sure that it is going to be enough for everyone, nobody has an allergic reaction and ideally everyone wants seconds, we have to ask ourselves who and how many are we cooking for? What kind of food intolerances are there? Which ingredients do we already have, and which do we still have to go out and buy?
Risk and potential analyses serve a similar purpose, which is to identify in advance the key points that require particular attention when developing a safeguarding policy or during a safeguarding process. The aim is to work out strengths and weaknesses, i.e. potentials and risks, in order to derive measures relating to protection and welfare from them. “Proactive forms of prevention can be effective only when proactive and potential error sources have been identified” (Oppermann et al., 2018). However, it is not only the answers and results of an analysis that are helpful, the process itself also has a positive effect. “[The psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg] demonstrated that by closely examining moral dilemmas to develop solution strategies, actors were able to improve their moral judgement capacity. He observed that children and young people exhibited positive changes in their social behaviour as a result. They also became more capable of recognising their own needs and develop better and fairer solutions with others when there were conflicts within the group.” (ibid.: 87). The participatory development of safeguarding policies and the conduct of a risk and potential analysis already have in themselves a preventive purpose and effect.
From objective to implementation – the steps involved in a risk and potential analysis
Just as these analyses are elements of a safeguarding process, each individual analysis can also be broken down into typical elements and steps. Typical because the analysis, just as the safeguarding process as a whole, has to be tailored to the specific organisation. Some associations may be able to reach a large number of people via an online survey, while other groups rely on a series of personal discussions. The assessment as to which approach is more appropriate and how results can be drawn from each format to assist with drawing up a safeguarding policy is the responsibility of the working group entrusted with drafting the safeguarding policy. The fact that the usefulness of the policy depends largely on how the process is initiated is another argument in favour of filling this working or steering group with a broad range of people and the necessary expertise. In this case, the working group must first decide on the organisation’s target group(s) and the analysis of who has insight and expertise regarding the organisation and what the (known) vulnerabilities are.
With these target groups in mind, the steering group decides which questions and formats are required to achieve the above-mentioned objective of the analysis, i.e. find out where structures, premises and communication, etc. provide fertile ground for sexualised violence; what options exist for reporting misconduct or feelings of unease; who has decision-making powers and where and when; and identify areas where safeguarding is already working well. The answers to these questions make it possible to highlight areas requiring attention; areas with a particular need for improvement, and areas that are relevant to writing up the safeguarding policy. The working group is tasked with compiling the necessary formats, topics and questions. Just like the policy as a whole, this process cannot be a copy and paste exercise even though various examples may be used for guidance or inspiration.
A national youth association embarks on the development of a safeguarding policy – who is the target group?
For the purpose of this analysis, the youth association identified two target groups: firstly, the members of the delegate assembly, which is made up of around 70 full-time and voluntary staff from the youth association’s member organisations, aged between 20 and 60. Secondly, the full-time staff at the national office for whom an anonymous online survey was created. The following focuses on the details relating to the workshop designed for the delegate assembly.
Questions, methods and rationale
When developing the workshop for the delegate assembly, every effort was made to design a separate method for each question. The aim was to keep the sessions varied and engaging to elicit more open, honest and useful responses for the analysis.
Participants were left to decide in which order they wanted to tackle the questions, which were grouped by topic. From the outset, they were free to move between the various stations that had been set up across several rooms and corridors in the building. Colourful masking tape on the floor marked the routes to different topic areas.
The topic of well-being provided a space to reflect on one’s own feelings and share them anonymously.
Question: “Do you feel comfortable here?”
Instructions: “Please take a roll of toilet paper and cut it to size.”
Method: Rating scale
Participants could cut the toilet roll to size according to how they felt (very comfortable = leave the roll whole, very uncomfortable = leave only a narrow slice).
Question: “Which situations make or made you feel uncomfortable?”
Instructions: “Please write down your thoughts on a piece of paper and place it in the jar.”
Method: Free text
The number of folded pieces of paper that were visible in the jar showed how many people had already responded while the individual responses remained invisible until they were evaluated.
Question: “Did you know that the national association was working on a safeguarding policy relating to the prevention of sexualised violence?”
Instructions: “Please place a white bean for ‘yes’ and a red bean for ‘no’ into the relevant jar.”
Method: Yes/no question
The responses were clearly visible in the two jars containing red or white beans.
This topic made reference to an existing code of conduct, which delegates were required to acknowledge when registering for the delegate assembly. It was also displayed in several prominent locations at the event.
Question: “Are there any rules (that you are aware of) governing how we interact at national level?”
Instructions: “Please take a green streamer for ‘yes’ or a red one for ‘no’ and blow it onto the other streamers.”
Method: Yes/no question
There are two bowls for yes and no. The bowls were deliberately chosen to be slightly too small so that they seemed to be overflowing.
Question: “Do you feel able to speak up if the code of conduct is not being followed?“
Instructions: “Please write down your thoughts on a card (feel free to go beyond a mere ‘yes’ or ‘no’) and pin it face down onto the wall.”
Method: Free text
Participants had the opportunity to think about how the code of conduct is applied in direct interactions.
For this topic, participants were asked about their views on how issues raised were handled and how opportunities for feedback and criticism were received.
Question: “What is your experience of how reports are dealt with?”
Instructions: “Please write down your thoughts, feel free to respond to comments already posted.”
Method: Written/silent discussion
This question was meant to encourage exchanges and reactions between participants while maintaining anonymity.
Question: “How confident do you feel about expressing criticism and why?”
Instructions: “Please take a strip of paper and cut it to the right length (see example strip). Write down your reasons on the strip.”
Method: Rating scale
Each person was given a narrow strip of paper to respond. Participants could cut the strip along a prepared scale and write down a number between 1 and 6 and give their reasons.
The sessions for this topic were held in a confidential setting to allow for both anonymous feedback and a guided exchange. Participants answered the first question anonymously with a coloured sticker (green for yes, red for no); the second and third questions were then discussed in a guided exchange and recorded on the flipchart by the facilitator.
Question: “Do you know who to turn to if you need help?“
Question: “What does a well-organised awareness team look like to you?” (People, roles, prior knowledge, setting, premises, structure, other factors…)
Question: “What kind of incidents (areas) should the awareness team be ready to deal with?”
Questions on the issue of positioning were asked in a separate room to allow small groups to discuss three statements over several rounds. A scale was marked out on the floor with masking tape. Participants positioned themselves along the scale in response to each statement. When they had chosen their position, a photo was taken of their feet.
Statement: “I feel completely comfortable about approaching the awareness team.”
Statement: “I feel represented within the national association.”
Following the first two statements, an open follow-up question was asked: “What would it take to achieve that?” The ensuing guided discussions were recorded on a flip chart so that they could be read during subsequent rounds.
Then the third statement was discussed:
Statement: “In a best-case scenario, prevention is invisible as a cross-cutting issue.”
The background to this statement was the event organisers’ ongoing assessment as to whether the prevention of sexual violence should be directly addressed at events, or whether the topic should be incorporated into the planning but not mentioned during the implementation. For example, could the topic of prevention and protection be dealt with more effectively if a warm-up game involving physical exercise was labelled as a “prevention method” or not?
The topics relating to participation were discussed using cards displayed on the corridor walls. As the questions were of a rather factual nature, the added value lay in making the answers immediately visible to everyone and so encourage mutual inspiration and the exchange of ideas, as necessary.
Question: “In which areas do you see the need for more action relating to prevention (of sexualised violence)?”
Question: “On which issues would you like to see more input from the national association?”
Question: “What does good communication or transparency look like to you when it comes to the issue of preventing sexualised violence?”
Instructions: “Please write down your thoughts onto the cards and pin them up where they can be seen (feel free to group similar thoughts together).”
Responses, results and conclusions
What were the responses and what measures were subsequently included in the safeguarding policy? Without going into too much detail, the type and range of responses came as a positive surprise. Various systemic principles and forms of discrimination were raised, which up to that point had not been mentioned in direct conversations or in the plenary sessions. For example, the participants’ age and the length of their own group’s membership of the association were descried as barriers to voicing criticism.
Situations in which people felt unease were particularly revealing; the following were mentioned:
- Group situations and anonymity: many people feel insecure in large unfamiliar groups or new environments, or when discussions become heated or hierarchical or are conducted with outdated views.
- Discrimination and exclusion: conscious or unconscious negative comments as well as a lack of diversity in committees and among supervisors cause people to withdraw and feel frustrated.
- Emotional insecurity: the fear of rejection increases when criticism of insensitive behaviour is not taken seriously or when hurtful feedback is received.
- Rooms and general conditions: alcohol consumption, inappropriate behaviour, a lack of space for personal feelings and a lack of female role models create additional barriers.
- Participation and representation: few voting rights in decision-making processes and the feeling among small or migrant groups of having to constantly prove themselves exacerbate the sense of unease.
- Personal boundary conditions: coming out, being alone in the evening and repeatedly having to explain oneself are personal reasons for a heavy feeling of insecurity.
Contributions that related to issues other than sexualised violence were forwarded to the relevant decision-makers, such as the management and the steering group for a diversity-sensitive development process. This process, like the safeguarding process relating to sexualised violence, takes a closer look at and further develops the association in terms of its strengths and weaknesses, in this case, however, with regard to various vulnerabilities, forms of discrimination and multiple discrimination (intersectionality).
For this reason, responses relating to issues other than sexualised violence were just as welcome and were a useful means of highlighting the vulnerabilities present within the association. Ultimately, they were also to be expected. When asked about power structures, potential unease, the culture of criticism and so on, responses will naturally describe shortcomings in all areas. The responsibility to take all reports seriously and deal with them constructively is equally universal. This is the only way in which trust in the reporting procedures will grow over time and ensure that even serious shortcomings will be addressed.
Therefore, it would be contrary to such a positive reporting structure if responses were limited to sexualised violence. However, it is important to be open and transparent from the beginning about whether, and to what extent, findings relating to other forms of discrimination can also be addressed.
The range of responses to almost all questions was very broad, indicating that the questions had been worded appropriately for this target group. The vast majority of responses was very constructive, both in terms of suggestions for improvement, openness and requests, and in terms of positive feedback on developments relating to awareness. Following the workshop, there were many expressions of gratitude for the process and the opportunity provided. This was both a joy and a burden because such active participation naturally brings with it the hope for specific implementation and direct change. However, in the medium term, the authors of the safeguarding policy have limited influence over this, especially when it comes to the described aspects of other forms of violence and discrimination. Coping with this duality is part of the process and a challenge for the steering group.
In terms of its usefulness and practical applicability, the analysis was a success. Many suggestions and descriptions were incorporated into the drafting process for the safeguarding policy. It was impressive to see how often contributions from the risk and potential analysis served as the basis for decisions and specific wordings. To return to the earlier stew metaphor, the analysis provided a long and detailed list of ingredients and quantities. The subsequent drafting process represents the actual recipe and method of preparation of these ingredients. Chopping up the answers and adding them to the stew at the right moment is obviously so much more than simply “throwing everything in together and stirring twice”. In this regard, the composition of the working group, which drew on various perspectives from within the association, was very helpful.
The most important insight from this analysis as the starting point of the safeguarding process probably lies at a meta level and is both banal and critical: ask a good question and you get a good answer.
References
Oppermann, C., Winter, V., Harder, C., Wolff, M. and Schröer, W., 2018 (ed.): Lehrbuch Schutzkonzepte in pädagogischen Organisationen. Weinheim, Basel: Beltz Juventa. p. 86 ff.
This article was first published in the practical guide ‘Participation and Prevention. Working together for strengthen child safeguarding’ (2026). The article was produced as part of the project “Start2Act: Safer Spaces and Participation in the Arts – Creating and Promoting Child Safeguarding Policies” run by the German Federation for Arts Education and Cultural Learning (BKJ). The project supports organisations involved in cultural education in the prevention of sexualised violence.
‘Start2Act’ is funded by the European Union. The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Commission. Neither the European Union nor the European Commission can be held responsible for them.
Translation (english): Alex Emerson