Delivering to keep people safe in case supervision
Content
Case summary
Inspector’s comments
Take-away learning
Back to keeping people safe case examples Next chapter: Reviewing to keep people safe
The implementation and delivery of services should support the safety of other people effectively. Practitioners should:
- provide a level and nature of contact that are sufficient to manage and minimise the risk of harm
- give sufficient attention to protecting actual and potential victims
- involve other agencies in managing and minimising the risk of harm and coordinate the work of these other agencies appropriately
- engage key individuals in the service user’s life, where appropriate, to support the effective management of risk of harm
- include home visiting, where necessary, to support the effective management of risk of harm.
Case summary: Damien Part 2
(to be read in conjunction with ‘planning to keep people safe’ section)
Damien was released to his mother’s address and the condition to reside as directed was in place throughout the period of supervision, even when HDC had ended. Initially, Damien was seen twice a week: once at the probation office and once at home. Visits at home were conducted either by the responsible officer or the police.
Over the course of supervision there were numerous allegations from the victim of the index offence to the police and victim liaison officer about Damien breaching the exclusion zone. All of these allegations were investigated but there were a number of contradictory accounts, which resulted in some reported breaches not being enforced.
Damien started a new relationship shortly after his release and he was issued with a warning for entering an exclusion zone and failure to disclose new and developing relationships. The new partner became pregnant and she was identified as vulnerable. The responsible officer made children’s social care and Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference referrals in order to ensure that relevant plans could be put in place to safeguard the new partner and unborn child.
Due to the complexities in this case and the need for extensive multi-agency liaison to monitor the domestic abuse and safeguarding concerns, a MAPPA level two referral was made. However, this was initially rejected by the MAPPA unit as it was felt that the responsible officer was communicating sufficiently with all involved in Damien’s risk management. Given that there were many conflicting reports from Damien, his former partner, current partner and his mother, and some intelligence relating to reoffending, the responsible officer’s line manager intervened and escalated the MAPPA decision to the Head of Public Protection.
A level two MAPPA meeting was convened quickly and due to the information shared, Damien was issued with a final warning for being stopped by police officers driving a vehicle when banned. He was eventually recalled for missing an appointment to attend the Building Better Relationships programme without reasonable explanation.
Inspector’s comments
This was a complex case to manage but was assisted greatly by the responsible officer’s forensic approach to planning and involvement of other agencies. The responsible officer was tenacious in chasing up information and verifying reports of contact between the victim and the service user. There were also police reports of Damien driving a car while banned. All liaison and communication with the victim contact unit, children’s social care and the police were recorded thoroughly in nDelius.
Home visits were used effectively in this case, both to provide an enhanced level of supervision so that Damien could be seen twice a week and to develop a positive relationship with Damien’s mother, who the responsible officer trusted and who did not make excuses for her son.
The responsible officer was right to refer the case to MAPPA when it became more complex to manage. When the referral was not accepted, the responsible officer’s line manager appropriately intervened and escalated their concerns to the senior lead with responsibility for MAPPA. As a consequence, the MAPPA decision was reviewed, and a meeting held.
The MAPPA process helped bring together the various strands of information in order to review risk and make a decision about enforcement. The recall was justified in the view of inspector. Damien had clearly breached a number of his licence conditions and his recklessness and disregard for the terms of his supervision were worrying given that he had started a new relationship with a vulnerable woman who was now pregnant. This development was rightly viewed by the responsible officer to be an acute risk factor and one that required tight monitoring while Damien was in the community.
Overall, the quality of practice in this case was enhanced by the responsible officer’s professional curiosity while supervising the service user, questioning his actions and consulting with numerous professionals. In addition, management oversight was effective in overturning the MAPPA decision.
Take-aways – applying the learning
- Professional curiosity is cited as significant in this case. Verifying information that is often conflicting and third hand is a complex task, requiring time, effort and tenacity alongside often challenging and complex caseloads. How do you exercise this level of diligence? How do you access suitable support?
- If you encounter MAPPA disagreements, where do you access support? How do you get the support you need from line management?
This case summary is intended for training/learning purposes and includes a fictional name.
