Planning 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: Delivering to keep people safe
Planning should focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe. Practitioners should:
- address risk of harm factors and prioritise those which are most critical
- set out the necessary constructive and/or restrictive interventions to manage the risk of harm
- make appropriate links to the work of other agencies involved with the service user and any multi-agency plans
- set out necessary and effective contingency arrangements to manage those risks that have been identified.
Case summary: Damien Part 1
Damien is a 26-year-old male sentenced to 20 months in custody for an offence of putting a person in fear through harassment and dangerous driving. Damien has a four-year-old son with the victim of this offence, who is subject to a child protection plan because of domestic abuse and concerns about his ex-partner’s ability to protect the child. A pre-sentence report was delivered to the court and Damien was assessed as posing a high risk of causing serious harm. He was managed as a MAPPA level one case initially.
A home detention curfew (HDC) assessment was completed five months before release, which was very thorough and analysed all relevant risks. Damien had been subject to probation supervision previously for an offence of common assault, and records were examined from that period of supervision to inform the new assessment. Damien had breached restrictive conditions in the past, and the HDC assessment detailed significant concerns relating to risks posed to his child. Previous convictions, information from the police domestic violence unit and children’s social care information were used to inform the assessment. Despite the responsible officer’s refusal to support early release, Damien was eventually released on HDC at short notice to his mother’s address. Damien was not assessed as presenting a risk of harm to his mother.
Planning started in this case at the point of the first HDC assessment. Two pre-release visits were completed by the responsible officer, who was accompanied by the social worker. The responsible officer was transparent about the reasons why HDC was not being supported and the two pre-release visits provided an opportunity to explain the licence conditions that would be imposed at the point of release. The social worker helped to outline the plans that would be in place regarding child contact.
- an exclusion zone
- a no-contact (without permission) condition with Damien’s ex-partner and child
- a condition to reside as directed
- a condition to disclose any developing relationships
- a curfew.
In addition, there was a condition for Damien to complete the Building Better Relationships programme. The RMP and licence conditions contained specific actions and objectives aimed at safeguarding Damien’s ex-partner and child.
Inspector’s comments
It was good to see that the planning process started in good time before the service user was due to be released. Pre-release visits were used to engage Damien in discussions about the plans for his release and make clear what restrictions would be in place when this occurred. It was particularly impressive that the responsible officer made arrangements for the social worker to attend a visit to the prison so that details could be communicated about the plans for child contact on release.
Despite the responsible officer not supporting release on HDC, the early contact in custody enabled swift action and plans to be put in place when the prison decided to release the service user at short notice.
Planning in this case took place in collaboration with other key professionals. The police, social worker and victim liaison unit were asked to contribute to the plans and were provided with copies of both the RMP and sentence plan once completed, as there were key actions contained within them for all three agencies.
The priorities in this case were to safeguard Damien’s ex-partner and child. Relevant actions to address domestic abuse and safeguarding were stipulated clearly throughout the RMP and sentence plan and had top priority. A practitioner unfamiliar with this case would have been able to pick up the RMP and sentence plan and ensure that supervision was delivered in accordance with the risks posed. The RMP had addressed all elements of the Four Pillars approach and this was good to see.
Take-aways – applying the learning
This illustration is a good example of comprehensive, robust planning where there was an identified risk of harm to others
- In your approach to planning, are you satisfied that your practice prioritises those risk of harm factors that are most critical? How do you know?
- How do you engage the assistance of other agencies involved with the service user in your approach to planning? If cooperation from other agencies is not sufficient to manage the risk of harm, how do you escalate this to ensure the right multi-agency planning is in place?
This case summary is intended for training/learning purposes and includes a fictional name.
