Implementation and delivery for engagement
Content
Case summary
Inspector’s comments
Take-away learning
The sentence/post-custody period should be implemented effectively with a focus on engaging the service user. Specifically:
- the requirements of the sentence should start promptly, or at an appropriate time
- there should be sufficient focus on maintaining an effective working relationship with the service user
- efforts should be made to enable the service user to complete the sentence, including flexibility to take appropriate account of their personal circumstances
- in post-custody cases, there should be a proportionate level of contact with the prisoner before release
- risks of non-compliance should be identified and addressed in a timely fashion to reduce the need for enforcement action
- enforcement action should be taken when appropriate
- efforts should be made to re-engage the service user after enforcement action or recall.
Case summary
Rick is a 34-year-old male convicted of downloading indecent images of children. He was sentenced to 12-months in custody and released on licence.
Rick has an avoidant personality disorder and is on the autistic spectrum. The responsible officer drew on a number of sources of information from medical and forensic professionals concerning this personality disorder to establish a suitable approach to risk management. The responsible officer carried out two pre-release visits eight weeks before Rick’s release. Discussions in these early stages focused on agreeing the best strategy for promoting Rick’s compliance with probation and various other agencies and how appointments should be issued to him. It was agreed that these would be provided verbally, followed up in writing and then with text reminders a few hours before every appointment.
The risk management plan was detailed, personalised and specific in terms of what was required to manage the risk that Rick presented and how to deliver the agreed risk management strategies.
There was evidence of effective liaison with a number of other agencies (including his GP, community mental health team and the Job Centre) to coordinate appointments and services throughout the supervision process. The structured interventions were constantly reviewed and informed by the forensic psychologist, with regular discussion at PICS (Psychologically Informed Consultation Service). There was evidence of sensitive disclosure to appropriate agencies and individuals to support the safety of others but also in terms of the Rick’s own self-harming behaviours. Rick was appropriately kept informed when information had to be disclosed or shared.
Home visits were carried out weekly when Rick was anxious about leaving his flat and when coming into contact with people he did not know. These were interspersed by occasional office visits to which his father accompanied him. The responsible officer developed a constructive relationship with Rick’s father, given how crucial he was to the supervision process in terms of support and providing information about his son’s condition and behaviour.
There was good coordination of risk management and random unannounced visits from the Police Sex Offender Management Unit, who made checks on his internet use. After six weeks of what the responsible officer deemed good compliance and positive progress, they received a call from Rick’s father to say that he and Rick had had an argument and Rick had left the family home and his whereabouts were unknown. The responsible officer monitored the situation closely and informed the police, who tried to locate Rick. Checks of Rick’s computer showed that, before leaving the family home, he had been accessing explicit images. The responsible officer quickly discussed the situation with their line manager and Rick was recalled.
Following recall, the responsible officer visited Rick in custody to explore the issues that resulted in him leaving the family home and to discuss his internet use. Rick was eventually re-released at the licence expiry date. The contact in custody was used effectively to re-establish a strategy for Rick’s eventual release and this time supported accommodation was also put in place.
Inspector’s comments
This was an extremely complex case but, for a period, there was a good level of compliance. The responsible officer took good account of Rick’s personality disorder and the way this impacted on him. Pre-release visits were crucial in this case and enabled the responsible officer to form a strong relationship with Rick, and to agree a workable strategy to promote his cooperation. Arrangements for the interventions and services Rick was required to attend were clearly explained and coordinated, taking account of information provided by the forensic psychologist on Rick’s learning style.
Home visits were also used well and were interspersed with office visits. Despite the eventual recall, the responsible officer recognised the importance of re-engaging with Rick once he was returned to custody to talk in detail about the circumstances that led to his recall to prison. This good engagement work resulted in a revised strategy for re-release, which eventually resulted in the successful completion of the post-sentence supervision period.
Take-aways – applying the learning
- In this case the responsible officer researched the service user’s diverse needs relevant to his avoidant personality disorder. This informed how she would approach the service user to maximise his engagement and to make clear her expectations for compliance and to trust. How does your practice explore the opportunities to maximise compliance?
- The responsible officer had pre-established the key elements to retaining the service user’s engagement: those of age and maturity and the presence, or otherwise, of social bonds. She did this in the order to reasonably manage any risk to others alongside the desistance process. She took prompt, timely action on enforcement, as she fully understood in this case the factors linked to his non-compliance. Will the learning from this case influence your approach to securing engagement, and if so how?
This case summary is intended for training/learning purposes and includes a fictional name.
