Reviewing 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 Back to effective case management homepage

This case example illustrates where effective reviewing of a case showed a good understanding of keeping other people safe. We expect reviewing to:

identify and respond to changes in factors related to risk of harm
be informed by the necessary input from other agencies involved in managing the risk of harm
meaningfully involve the child and their parents/carers in their risk of harm, and consider the views of others
lead to the necessary adjustments in the ongoing plan of work to manage and minimise the risk of harm.

Case summary

Sam is a 17-year-old male, and a looked after child, sentenced to a two-year youth rehabilitation order following a serious sexual assault. A sexual harm prevention order was considered but not imposed.¹²

This was Sam’s first offence and the victim was a female friend who he had known for a couple of years. He was living in a residential children’s home out of the local area and away from the victim.

Although Sam was 17 years old, because of the nature of the offence, the case manager contacted his previous school. He was informed that there had been concerns about Sam’s inappropriate sexualised language and behaviour, especially around female teachers. At the time, a referral to children’s social care was made and an early help worker was identified to work with Sam’s family. Sam also had complex speech and language difficulties and appointments were offered for him to see a speech, language and communication therapist. Unfortunately, the family did not engage with the early help provision offered and did not take Sam to see therapist.

The YOT where Sam had lived with his family, and where he had committed the offence, had completed the pre-sentence report and an AIM2¹³ assessment and intervention plan. During the initial assessment there had been good liaison by the case manager with children’s social care, Sam’s previous school, residential care staff and the YOT where Sam was now residing.

The case manager recognised that, due to his speech and language difficulties, Sam often got upset when he encountered unfamiliar people and environments. As the area where he was now living was not too far away, it was agreed that the case manager from his home YOT would remain involved and provide interventions alongside a member of staff from the YOT where he now lived. Sam had clearly benefited from the continuity in the relationship. He was responding well to the interventions being delivered and was positively engaging with the speech and language specialist.

Initially, staff at the residential placement worked on an individual basis with Sam and he was not allowed to be unsupervised due to the risk he could present to others. As part of his regular looked after child reviews, which included feedback from all the agencies involved, his level of supervision was discussed. Over time, as he responded well to the interventions delivered and his risk of harm to others reduced, he was eventually allowed limited unsupervised time in the community where he lived.

The case was reviewed every three months by the case manager. These were in depth, reflected Sam’s changing circumstances, and incorporated the discussions from other agencies’ meetings. At the first review meeting, the case manager had asked the speech and language therapist to advise on how best the professionals involved could improve their communication with Sam – by using simple language, using shorter, clearer sentences and speaking clearly.

Sam’s intervention plan was changed as different priorities emerged. The changes built on Sam’s strengths and the positive developments he was making as he progressed through his order.

Inspector’s comments

Coordinating the right stakeholders and accountable agencies at the right time is often a challenge when a child lives out of area. All case reviews were shared with the other agencies involved, who, in turn, kept the case manager updated about any developments in their interventions with Sam and his family. The case manager continually updated and reviewed the assessments with relevant information as it emerged and provided these to Sam and his family. In this case, there was also a good rationale recorded for proposals to change the assessed level of risk of harm to others.

The case manager coordinated the involvement of the other agencies and included Sam and his family in the reviews. As a result, they were able to identify and anticipate any situations that might increase his risk and work together to negate these immediately.

Important learning

The case manager recognised the complexity of the case, the child’s needs and the degree of risk. This was balanced with the need for continuity for this child due to his speech and language difficulties.
The case manager continued to assess the child throughout the order, recognising that his risk of harm to others was not a static factor. The case reviewing stages were used to revisit the assessment and continue to commission the support of specialist services. This was a challenge when the child was living away from home.

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.

Youth Justice Board. (2015). Practice advice: speech, language and communication needs in the youth justice system.

What stood out to you in this case illustration and can you identify similar approaches to carrying out reviews in your own practice?
Will you make any changes to your practice, including working with a range of other agencies, where there is a requirement to manage ongoing risk of harm to others when a child lives away from home?
How will you develop further your practice in reviewing cases when managing a child’s risk of harm to others?
Recent data indicates that up to 71 per cent of children in the youth justice system have speech, language and communication difficulties.¹⁴How can you develop further your case reviewing stages to minimise any risk of harm being realised where there are complex learning and developmental issues, and speech, language and communication difficulties?

[12] the court [has the power to impose this, but] 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.

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

[14] The Youth Justice Board for England and Wales (2020). Assessing the needs of sentenced children in the Youth Justice System 2018/19. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/assessing-the-needs-of-sentenced-children-in-the-youth-justice-system

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