Risk Management That Respects Rights

Risk Management That Respects Rights

Published: Friday, 20 March 2026
Category: Practical Tools & Skills
Reading time: 8 minutes

She wants to catch the bus independently. She has an intellectual disability. There are risks.

The traditional risk management response? "It's too dangerous. We'll drive you."

Decision made. Risk eliminated. Person's autonomy eliminated too.

But what if we asked a different question: "How do we support you to travel independently with the dignity of risk respected?"

That's the shift from paternalistic risk management to rights-based risk support. And it changes everything.

The Problem with Traditional Risk Management

Traditional risk management in human services is fundamentally about one thing: avoiding liability.

Services ask: "What could go wrong? How do we prevent it? How do we protect ourselves if it does?"

These aren't unreasonable questions. But when they're the ONLY questions, the result is:

• Overprotection

• Removal of choice

• Infantilization

• Control disguised as care

Examples:

• CCTV cameras in bedrooms "for safety"

• Locked fridges "to manage dietary risks"

• Preventing relationships "to protect from exploitation"

• Mandatory supervision "to prevent falls"

• Cancelling activities "because we can't guarantee safety"

Each of these might be framed as "risk management." But they're really about control. And they violate fundamental rights to privacy, autonomy, dignity, and self-determination.

The Rights-Based Alternative

Rights-based risk management starts from a completely different premise:

Everyone has the right to:

• Make choices about their own life

• Take risks (dignity of risk)

• Make decisions others might view as unwise

• Learn from mistakes

• Access support to understand risks and make informed choices

The question isn't: "How do we prevent this risk?"

The question is: "How do we uphold this person's right to choose while supporting them to understand and manage risks?"

This doesn't mean ignoring genuine risks or abandoning duty of care. It means reframing risk management as risk support within a human rights framework.

Understanding Dignity of Risk

Dignity of risk is a concept that everyone, including people with disability, people experiencing mental health challenges, and older people, has the right to:

• Make choices that involve risk

• Learn from experience (including negative experiences)

• Have the same opportunities as others to take reasonable risks

Why it matters:

Risk is part of life. Every time any of us:

• Crosses a street

• Tries a new activity

• Starts a relationship

• Changes jobs

• Lives independently

We take risks. We don't expect others to prevent us from taking these risks. We expect to make informed choices about them.

People with disability, people with cognitive impairments, people experiencing mental illness—they have the same right.

The alternative to dignity of risk is:

• Institutionalisation

• Dependence

• Missed opportunities

• Lives devoid of growth

• Second-class citizenship

That's not protection. That's oppression.

Duty of Care in a Rights Framework

"But what about our duty of care?"

This is the most common objection to rights-based risk approaches. So let's be clear about what duty of care actually means.

Duty of care requires:

• Taking reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm

• Providing appropriate support

• Acting in the person's best interests (as defined collaboratively with them, not imposed on them)

• Respecting their rights and preferences

Duty of care does NOT require:

• Eliminating all risk

• Making decisions for people

• Overriding informed choices

• Creating risk-free (and therefore opportunity-free) environments

The legal standard is reasonableness, not zero risk.

Courts have consistently held that:

• People have the right to make unwise decisions

• Service providers can't be held liable for choices made by people with capacity

• Duty of care must be balanced with rights to autonomy

You can uphold duty of care AND respect rights. They're not in conflict.

The Rights-Based Risk Support Process

Step 1: Start with the Person's Goal

Don't start with the risk. Start with what the person wants to do.

They want to: Live alone, catch public transport, start a relationship, get a job, go to the beach, cook for themselves, manage their own money.

That's the starting point. Not "here's why you can't."

Step 2: Explore Risks TOGETHER

Don't do a risk assessment TO someone. Do it WITH them.

Ask:

• "What concerns do you have about this?"

• "What could go wrong?"

• "Have you done something similar before? How did it go?"

• "What would you do if [scenario]?"

People often have clear-eyed understanding of risks. Include them in identifying and thinking through risks, not just receiving your assessment.

Step 3: Distinguish Real Risks from Fear

Not every concern is a genuine risk requiring intervention.

Ask yourself:

• Is this a real risk, or my anxiety?

• Am I concerned about actual harm, or about what might look bad?

• Would I be concerned if this person didn't have a disability/diagnosis?

• Is the risk foreseeable and significant, or just possible?

• Am I focused on the person's safety, or the service's liability?

Be honest. Sometimes our "risk management" is really about our own comfort or organisational fear.

Step 4: Consider Supported Decision-Making

If someone has difficulty understanding information or weighing options:

Don't assume they lack capacity. Instead, ask:

• What support would help them understand?

• What format of information works best? (Visual, verbal, written, demonstration)

• Who could support them to think through this?

• Can we break information into smaller pieces?

• Do we need more time for them to process?

Capacity isn't all-or-nothing. Someone might have capacity for some decisions but need support for others. Someone might need support to understand information but make their own decision once they do.

Capacity is also decision-specific and time-specific. They might have capacity today but not during a crisis. They might have capacity for deciding what to eat but need support for complex financial decisions.

Step 5: Develop Strategies COLLABORATIVELY

Once you've identified real risks and confirmed the person understands them, work together on strategies.

Ask:

• "What would help manage this risk?"

• "What's worked before?"

• "What support do you need?"

• "What are you comfortable trying?"

Strategies might include:

• Skills development (travel training, cooking lessons, safety skills)

• Environmental modifications (grab rails, reminder systems, accessible routes)

• Support arrangements (checking in, being available by phone, accompanying at first)

• Emergency plans (who to call, what to do if X happens)

• Gradual progression (start small, build confidence, expand)

The key: They're actively involved in developing strategies, not having strategies imposed.

Step 6: Trial, Review, Adjust

Rights-based risk support isn't one-and-done. It's iterative.

Start small. Trial the plan. See how it goes.

Review together:

• What worked?

• What didn't?

• What needs adjusting?

• Do you want to continue?

• What's the next step?

This isn't about achieving perfection before "allowing" someone to do something. It's about supporting them to try, learn, adjust.

Step 7: Document Thoughtfully

Your documentation should show:

• The person's goal and what it means to them

• Risks identified (with their input)

• Assessment that they understand risks

• Strategies developed collaboratively

• Support arrangements

• Review process

• Their informed choice

Example:

"[Person] expressed strong desire to live independently. We discussed potential risks including managing medication, responding to emergencies, social isolation, and financial management. [Person] demonstrated clear understanding of these risks and identified strategies they're confident using: weekly medication pack filled by pharmacy, emergency contacts on phone and fridge, regular contact with family, and support from financial counsellor.

I assessed that [person] has capacity to make this decision with support. They have chosen to proceed with the plan. We have arranged:

• Weekly check-ins by phone

• Monthly home visits

• 24/7 on-call support if needed

• Review at 3 months

[Person] understands they can change their mind at any time. They're excited and nervous but ready to try. Their family is supportive though worried—we've discussed how to support [person's] choice while addressing family concerns."

See how this documentation shows:

• Rights respected

• Risks acknowledged and addressed

• Support provided

• Person's agency-centred

• Decision-making process clear

Step 8: Know When to Intervene

Rights-based doesn't mean never intervening. It means intervention is:

Only when:

• There's imminent risk of serious harm

• The person genuinely lacks capacity even with support

• Legal requirements mandate it (child protection, mental health act)

And intervention is:

• The least restrictive option

• Time-limited and reviewed regularly

• Transparent and documented

• Subject to appeal/review

Example: Someone with dementia wants to keep driving but is having accidents and getting lost. Family is concerned.

Rights-based process:

• Discuss concerns with person

• Support them to understand risks

• Explore options (driving assessment, driving lessons, alternatives)

• If assessment shows unsafe, explore how to maintain independence without driving

• Document capacity assessment and decision-making

• If they disagree, support access to second opinion

• Only if genuinely unsafe and lacking capacity: involve family, consider guardianship, seek least restrictive alternative

The goal: Maintain maximum autonomy consistent with genuine safety.

Practical Examples

Example 1: Relationship Risk

Scenario: Person with intellectual disability wants to start a relationship. Staff are concerned about "exploitation risk."

❌ Paternalistic approach: "Relationships are too risky. We won't support contact."

✅ Rights-based approach:

• Affirm right to relationships

• Provide education about healthy relationships, consent, safe sex

• Discuss what to look for in relationships

• Create safety plan (who to talk to if concerned, how to get help)

• Support their choice

• Stay available if things go wrong

Example 2: Financial Risk

Scenario: Person with acquired brain injury wants to manage their own money but has previously overspent and gotten into debt.

❌ Paternalistic approach: "We'll manage your money for you."

✅ Rights-based approach:

• Acknowledge past challenges and discuss what went wrong

• Explore their goals for money management

• Develop strategies together (separate accounts, automatic bill payments, spending plan)

• Connect with financial counsellor

• Start with managing small amounts, build up gradually

• Regular review and support

• Accept that they might make mistakes—that's part of learning

Example 3: Living Independently Risk

Scenario: Older person with dementia wants to continue living alone. Family wants residential care.

❌ Paternalistic approach: "It's not safe. We're moving you."

✅ Rights-based approach:

• Start with person's preference (living at home)

• Identify specific risks (medication, cooking, falls, wandering)

• Develop support plan to address risks (medication management system, meal delivery, falls prevention, monitoring)

• Try it with intensive support

• Regular review with person and family

• Adjust as needed

• Only consider residential care if risks genuinely can't be managed with all available supports

When Rights-Based Risk Feels Hard

Your organisation is risk-averse: Work within the constraints you can. Document thoroughly. Build evidence that rights-based approaches can be safe. Advocate for policy change.

You're genuinely worried: That's okay. Worry is information. Use supervision to process it. Distinguish anxiety from actual unmanageable risk.

Family disagrees: Family input matters, but adult's choice matters more (unless they lack capacity). Work to bring family on board while ultimately respecting adult's decision.

Something goes wrong: Learn from it. Review what happened. Adjust plan. But don't abandon rights-based approach because risk is possible—risk is always possible.

The Bigger Picture

Rights-based risk management is ultimately about this question:

Whose life is it?

If someone has capacity to make decisions (with support if needed), those decisions are theirs to make—even if we disagree, even if they involve risk, even if they might lead to negative outcomes.

That's not irresponsible risk management. That's respecting human rights.

And it's what we'd want for ourselves.

Key Takeaways

• Traditional risk management focuses on eliminating risk and protecting services from liability

• Rights-based risk support focuses on upholding autonomy while supporting informed choices

• Dignity of risk means everyone has the right to take reasonable risks and learn from experience

• Duty of care requires reasonableness, not zero risk—it operates within a rights framework

• Supported decision-making helps people understand risks without removing their choice

• Intervention should only occur when risks are genuinely unmanageable and person lacks capacity

• Documentation should show collaborative process, informed choice, and person's agency

Reflection Questions

• When you think about "managing risk," are you focused on the person's safety or the service's liability?

• What risks do you take in your own life that you might prevent someone with disability from taking?

• When was the last time you supported someone to do something that involved risk? How did it feel?

• What would need to change in your organisation to enable more rights-based risk approaches?

Further Learning

Deepen your rights-based risk practice with The Community Workers Hub:

• Developing Client-Centred Risk Management Plans - Collaborative, rights-respecting approaches

• Supporting Supported Decision-Making: It's Not About Capacity - Tools for supporting informed choice

• Understanding Rights and Social Justice Frameworks - Legal and ethical foundations

Join The Hub for training that centres rights, not just risk.

Sarah Smallman is the founder of The Community Workers Hub and a passionate advocate for rights-based practice that respects dignity of risk.