Content

Case summary
Inspector’s comments
Take-away learning

Back to desistance homepage Next chapter: Keeping people safe in case supervision

---

Reviewing should focus sufficiently on supporting the service user’s desistance. Practitioners should:

Back to top

Case summary

Leon is a 29-year-old male sentenced to four years in custody for supply of Class A drugs, namely, heroin and crack cocaine. Leon was part of an organised crime group (OCG) and has numerous previous convictions for violent and weapon-related offences. Leon has never worked, although money and status are important to him, as he had experienced significant affluence when he was involved in drug supply activity. He also used cocaine regularly prior to conviction, which is linked to recklessness, aggression and poor decision-making. He is assessed as high risk of serious harm.

This was the second period of release after a previous recall. The case was held by a probation officer and co-worked by a probation services officer undertaking the probation qualification in probation. They discussed Leon monthly with the senior probation officer, in line with local management oversight processes.

Despite having never worked, during his sentence Leon qualified as a barber. However, during his initial release he was recalled before finding work. This time, support to capitalise on this strength was prioritised within the sentence plan. It was balanced with the completion of offence-focused work (namely the Thinking Skills programme) and the management of several restrictions to ensure that the risk of harm was being closely monitored.

There was evidence of a good working relationship between Leon and the officers working with him. He also complied well with living at the AP. It was through the AP that intensive support and encouragement were provided to help Leon find appropriate employment, which he did after four weeks.In order to properly assess whether full-time employment was compatible with compliance with his stringent licence conditions, Leon’s case was first discussed with the responsible officer’s line manager. Compliance, attitude, drug test results and police intelligence were reviewed during this discussion and it was agreed that Leon’s employment could be approved as long as the offer was verified via discussion with the employer. Details of the management discussion were recorded in a management oversight contact in nDelius.

The second part of the review consisted of a three-way meeting between the supervising probation officer, AP key worker and the AP employment adviser. Initially, Leon was resistant to the discussion taking place between his officer and the employer, but after some discussion he agreed. Agreement was also reached that Leon needed to attend the Thinking Skills programme but that this would take place on an evening. The curfew was also amended to enable Leon to leave the AP early enough to get to his place of work. It was agreed that while Leon was attending the Thinking Skills programme, he would not have face-to-face contact with his responsible officer. They would keep in touch over the phone, but Leon would still have brief key work sessions on an evening at the AP.The above discussion was appropriately reviewed through the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements and recorded clearly in nDelius within a professional judgement contact. The OASys assessment was reviewed and the risk management plan and sentence plan amended to reflect the changes.

Back to top

Inspector’s comments

This case provides an excellent example of reviewing with sufficient focus on desistance accompanied by close attention to the risk management plan and involving the service user. The responsible officer had used their previous knowledge of Leon to enhance restrictions on re-release but to also ensure that the relevant strength (a qualification) was given prominence within the release plan.

The review was conducted in two parts: first with the line manager, and then during a three-way meeting. It was effective and took into account all of the information available from those working with Leon to make a decision about employment: a factor intrinsically linked to his likelihood of reoffending. As a result of the process of review, relevant adjustments were made to the plan of work and to restrictions, so that Leon could start working full time.

Back to top

Take-aways – applying the learning

Back to top

This case summary is intended for training/learning purposes and includes a fictional name.