Introduction to keeping people safe in case supervision - low risk
Content
Evidence summary
What we expect and what our inspections tell us about practice to keep people safe
What our inspections tell us about effective practice to keep people safe
What ex-service users tell us about keeping people safe in case supervision
Back to keeping people safe – low risk Next chapter: Assessing to keep people safe
At its core, keeping people safe is about public protection and assessing and managing the risk of harm posed by individuals to protect both known and potential future victims. High-quality public protection work can minimise – but not eliminate – the potential for risk of harm to society.
At the inspectorate, our focus on and expectations about public protection concern any risk of harm and not just the risk of serious harm. We expect to see assessment, planning, implementation and delivery and reviewing practice that addresses all elements of risk of harm posed by the service user, not just those indicative of serious harm. Practitioners should take account of and address the potential that harmful actions and behaviour could have on others and put plans in place to prevent serious harm from occurring.
Evidence summary
- Effective communication and timely and comprehensive information-sharing between statutory and non-statutory agencies. There is evidence that partnership working, and inter-agency collaboration can contribute to better risk management and reduced reoffending, through sharing information and resources and managing cases more holistically. Risks are managed most effectively when agencies use their skills and knowledge in a complementary way, provide enhanced access to services when required and enable rapid responses to escalating risk or deteriorating behaviour.
- Defensible decision-making at every level from practitioner to senior leadership is crucial to public protection. Defensibility is only possible where evidence-based practice and effective supervision skills have been deployed. Agencies working with high-risk service users must also ensure that their staff have access to validated assessment tools.
- A positive and trusting relationship between the individual practitioner and service user can be very motivating for the service user and influence them to change. The relationship should be supportive but challenging when necessary, with appropriate disclosure.
An integrated approach that balances control with rehabilitation has been termed ‘blended public protection’. It is stressed that a protection strategy (which aims to protect through control of risks) and a reintegration strategy (which aims to reduce risk and protect through resettlement, rehabilitation and reintegration) should not be seen as conflicting and can be combined. There is evidence that a strong rehabilitative component is beneficial, with incentives helping to encourage and reward compliance.
What we expect and what our inspections tell us about practice to keep people safe
When we inspect a case, we assess the quality of work delivered in relation to engagement, desistance and keeping people safe. In doing this we do not focus on the quality of specific documents, work products or tools. Instead we look at practice holistically. For example, when examining planning practice, we inspect the quality of the whole process, not just the quality of the written plan.
- assessment practice that focuses sufficiently on the safety of others
- planning that is robust and prioritises the safety of both current victims and potential future victims
- implementation and delivery of interventions and services that are well coordinated and responsive to the risks posed by the service user
- reviewing practice that is meaningful and responds to the circumstances in the case, whether related to the service user or victims. Reviewing should be dynamic and, where necessary, assessments, plans and the supervision process should be amended to ensure that individuals are kept safe.
What follows relates to our domain two standards for assessment, planning, implementation and delivery, and reviewing, and contains our expectations for practice relating to keeping people safe. Against each element of practice, we use a good practice example to show where we have seen things done well and from which we believe other practitioners can learn.
What our inspections tell us about effective practice to keep people safe
Since June 2018 we have inspected 4,548 cases in total against our domain two standards for case supervision. Keeping people safe is the area of practice in which we have found the most deficits.
- domestic abuse checks are undertaken in only half of cases
- there is inconsistency in how often child safeguarding checks are completed, with this occurring in under 60% of cases
- assessments clearly identify and analyse risk of harm to others in less than half of cases
- assessments only draw on information from other agencies in just over half of cases
- planning prioritises risk of harm factors in too few cases
- too few plans make links to the work of other agencies to manage the risk of harm
- adequate contingency plans are in place in less than half of cases
- there is inadequate planning to address domestic abuse issues (less than half of cases)
- the level and nature of contact offered are insufficient in too many cases
- implementation and delivery of services to protect actual and potential victims in more than half of cases
- the work of other agencies is only sufficiently well-coordinated in just over half of cases
- practitioners only involve key individuals in the service user’s life in just over half of cases
- home visits are used as a mechanism to assess and manage the risk of harm in less than half of cases.
- reviews identify changes in risk of harm in just over half of cases
- following review, necessary adjustments to the ongoing plan of work were made in less than half of cases
- reviews do not involve other agencies when they were involved in the delivery of services often enough
- reviews relating to the risk of harm do not sufficiently involve the service user.
What ex-service users tell us about keeping people safe in case supervision
In developing this guide, we consulted with a number of individuals who had been subject to probation supervision in the past. We wanted to acknowledge and understand their perspective on practice to keep people safe. Here is some of what they told us:
“It is the job of probation to be curious and a bit nosey, especially with domestic abuse and the safety of children. Although it can feel intrusive from the service user’s point of view, it is needed”.
“Probation officers need to have uncomfortable conversations and not shy away from challenging the service user’s behaviour. Some people can be manipulative, and staff need to be aware of this”.
“Of course, it is important for probation officers to keep information confidential as much as possible, but when the safety of others is concerned this can only go so far. Probation staff must share information about the service user with other agencies”.
“Extra care needs to be taken when dealing with information about victims, especially by other agencies. I’m aware of instances where information about a victim’s whereabouts has slipped out unintentionally”.
“Keeping the public safe is important but workers also need to be mindful when service users might be at risk of self-harm or suicide and put support in place”.
