Planning to keep other people safe in case management

Case summary
Inspector’s comments
Important learning
Take-away learning

Back to keeping other people safe homepage Next chapter: Delivering to keep other people safe

This case example illustrates where planning showed a good understanding of a child’s risk of harm to others. We expect planning to:

promote the safety of other people and sufficiently address risk of harm factors
involve other agencies where appropriate
address any specific concerns and risks related to actual and potential victims
set out the necessary controls and interventions to promote the safety of other people
set out necessary and effective contingency arrangements to manage those risks that have been identified.

Case summary

Wayne is an 18-year-old male who received a two-year youth rehabilitation order for distributing and possessing extreme pornographic images. In addition, the court imposed a sexual harm prevention order.¹⁰

Wayne was 17 years old at the time of the offence. He distributed extreme pornographic images of a number of different children through a messaging app on his mobile phone. He was in post-16 education with special educational needs and/or disabilities (SEND) provision. He had very few friends of his own age and was struggling socially at school. He lived at home with his mother and spent most of his time online in chat rooms. He was interacting with young children online at the time of the offence. A parent of one of the children had seen the images and contacted the police.

When Wayne was first arrested and taken to the police station, he received a mental health screening. This screening recognised that Wayne needed a further assessment and the case manager proactively fast-tracked the assessment to ensure that it was completed in time for it to be included in the court report. The assessment eventually led to a formal diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). This informed the court report, and the sentencing options and decisions.

The case manager liaised extensively with relevant professionals to address all of Wayne’s needs throughout the subsequent assessment and management of this case. Alongside the mental health assessment, a pre-sentence report and an AIM2¹¹ assessment were completed. These provided a comprehensive analysis of Wayne’s needs, strengths and required level of supervision.

In terms of needs, Wayne required support with:

finding ways of coping when frustrated (like not hitting others)
learning to accept personal responsibility for actions (good and bad)
understanding when he should be directed away from a negative situation to a positive one.

He had strengths in maths and logic, including seeing and understanding patterns in nature and in numbers, and solving puzzles or word problems. In addition, he liked taking things apart and figuring out how they work.

The AIM2 assessment identified the following actions for Wayne:

safety planning to reduce the risk he posed to himself and others
engagement that took into account his minimisation of his behaviour
sex and relationships education, including consent, boundaries and social and moral consideration
how to make good choices to keep himself and others safe sexually
emotional and self-regulation
understanding of his harmful sexual behaviour.

The subsequent report outlined a plan to address the level of need and risk during the community sentence. It included an AIM2 intervention programme that recognised Wayne’s ASD and used tools that suited his learning style. The case manager also involved health colleagues in working with Wayne regarding healthy relationships, as well as his social worker, who supported Wayne and his family in understanding how to live with his diagnosis.

In addition to Wayne’s welfare needs, the case manager also addressed the risk of harm he could pose to others. There was evidence of extensive planning to manage his risk of harm, which included working with the police and the probation service, MAPPA, sex offender registration and managing the sexual harm prevention order.

This specified that Wayne should not:

possess any device capable of storing digital images, such as a USB stick or external hard drive, unless he made it available on request for inspection by a police officer
install any encryption or wiping software on any device other than that which was intrinsic to the operation of the device.

Inspector’s comments

The inspector identified this as effective practice because the planning addressed all of the relevant risk of harm factors and took a multi-agency approach. The case manager coordinated the plan and made clear which agency was leading on each activity. It was reassuring to see that all agencies kept each other informed of Wayne’s compliance and engagement with the plan.

The planning specified in detail the range of controls and interventions required to minimise the risk of harm to others, and who was responsible for delivering them. The case manager outlined that the specialist work on the offending behaviour needed to take account of needs related to Wayne’s ASD. He recognised, as part of the planning, that Wayne could get anxious about unfamiliar situations, could take longer to understand information and was likely to do or think the same things over and over.

The case manager had clear contingency planning in place, which included the actions to be taken by all agencies if the risk of harm either increased or decreased. He ensured that the overall sentence plan included managing the risk Wayne posed to himself and others, as well as monitoring his compliance, parental support, setting realistic goals and continuing to encourage him to engage with the interventions.

Important learning

This case highlights:

the need to engage health professionals at the earliest opportunity
the importance of the YOT partnership, specifically at the police station when the services of health professionals were first sought
the importance of comprehensive specialist assessments like AIM2 to support the pre-sentence report, which enabled the case manager to create an early outline of a plan to supervise the child in the community.

Take-aways – applying the learning

For further information on this subject, please see:

National Autistic Society. Criminal Justice – a guide for police officers and professionals.

What stood out to you in this case illustration and can you identify similar elements in your own approach to planning when you are managing a case where the child has complex needs and presents a risk of serious harm?
Will you make any changes to your practice when considering collaborating with other specialists and agencies to formulate a plan where a child poses a high risk of harm to others?
How can you develop further your understanding of planning for keeping people safe?

[10] To impose a sexual harm prevention order the court must be satisfied that the offender presents a risk of sexual harm to the public (or particular members of the public) and that an order is necessary to protect against this risk. See Schedule 5 to the Sexual Offences Act (2003).

[11] The AIM2 framework is risk tool used by youth justice professionals to assess risk in sexually harmful behaviour. The assessment model uses an evidence-based tool to determine the level of supervision that is required for children and their therapeutic needs.

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