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

Back to keeping the child safe homepage Next chapter: Reviewing to keep the child safe

---

This case example illustrates where the service delivery showed a good understanding of keeping the child safe. We expect implementation and delivery of services to:

Back to top

Case summary 

Daniel is a 17-year-old male subject to a seven-month youth rehabilitation order with a supervision requirement for violent offences. He assaulted a member of the care staff and a nurse at school.

Daniel was a looked after child and had been on a full care order since he was two years old. He was brought into care because of severe neglect that left him with brain damage and a range of physical, emotional and mental health needs. The victims of his offences were professionals who had worked with him and included social workers and medical staff.

Daniel presented with many complex issues and challenges and initially behaved aggressively towards his case manager. With the support of her line manager and guidance from the YOT health care team, the case manager took steps to build a relationship with Daniel. Adequate time was built into the planning process so that she could take account of how to work with his disability while addressing his persistent offending behaviour. She recognised that she would have to gain Daniel’s trust and be flexible and understanding of his chaotic lifestyle.

One of her challenges had been to identify the complexities around Daniel’s emotional, mental health and wellbeing issues. She took account of his traumatic childhood experiences and, with the help of health colleagues, understood how his neurodisabilities could affect his learning needs. With the help of his GP and the YOT healthcare team, the case manager identified specialist communication tools and techniques to use with Daniel. She shared these with Daniel’s new social worker so that he was equipped to communicate with Daniel and understand his needs.

The case manager tailored a programme of work by gradually introducing Daniel to interventions, using activities that she knew he enjoyed and focusing on his strengths and what he could achieve. She included computer design and art work that she knew Daniel liked, and made sure that she asked him for feedback on the interventions and the tools that they were using. This improved Daniels’s level of trust, his attitude and motivation, and his engagement with the sentence as it progressed.

The case manager took a strengths-based approach to the programme. The aim of this was to achieve greater stability for Daniel and reduce the level risk he posed to himself. It also aimed to increase Daniel’s wellbeing and resilience in his residential home. The approach encouraged Daniel, and the staff, to get involved in decision-making so that he was more in control of the support he received and thereby his everyday life. The programme included a good mix of leisure and learning opportunities, and home- and community-based activities. The case manager helped Daniel and his carers to challenge each other constructively to create change, by identifying ways to deal with conflict and build confidence. She took care not undermine staff in their role but to build Daniel’s resilience. This was really successful, and Daniel and his carers looked forward to the sessions. They all said he was happier, responded better at home and managed to communicate with fewer outbursts, with a generally improved mood.

Towards the end of the order, the case manager enlisted the services of a mentor who was helping Daniel to master basic tasks, such as washing and attending to personal hygiene, to improve his self-esteem and develop his resilience.

Back to top

Inspector’s comments

This was identified as effective practice because the case manager delivered services with the assistance of specialist health advisers. She considered Daniel’s complex needs and was allowed the time to create the bespoke interventions, like managing specific conflicts with people and tasks at home, that were needed to engage him. Daniel was not managing self-care or meeting the general expectations of the home, like sharing domestic tasks such as loading the dishwasher and hoovering his room. Due to his highly complex needs, relationship-building was key for the interventions to promote his safety and wellbeing and reduce his risk of reoffending. The case manager focused on interventions that were sensitive to his disabilities and built on his strengths. She was aware of the traumatic effect that adverse childhood experiences, for example child neglect, can have on child development.

As Daniel was a looked after child, the case manager engaged with his social worker. The YOT interventions were delivered alongside the work of the social worker and there was good communication regarding roles and responsibilities. The inspector commended the case manager for establishing and maintaining regular meetings between Daniel and his social worker. This helped cement their relationship, as the social worker had recently been allocated Daniel’s case. This work was well coordinated, with joint working, good information-sharing and a clear record of each agency’s role, all of which helped the case manager to deliver the work to support Daniel’s safety and wellbeing.

The inspector was impressed that the case manager regularly sought feedback about how Daniel was engaging with children’s social care and worked well with all other agencies to manage and promote his safety and wellbeing.

Back to top

Important learning

• Looked after children and children with neuro-disabilities are over-represented in the criminal justice system.
• A focus on strengths and wellbeing and interventions from the right agencies helped to improve the child’s wellbeing and ensured that he complied well with the order.

Back to top

Take-aways – applying the learning

For further information on this subject and managing looked after children, please see:

Department for Education. (2018). National protocol on reducing unnecessary criminalisation of looked after children and care leavers.

Academy for Social Justice Commissioning. (2018). Understanding and use of trauma-informed practice (see slide pack at bottom of the page).

Kate Aubrey-Johnson, S. L. (2019). Youth Justice Law and Practice. Legal Action Group Education and Service Trust Ltd. Chapter 3.

Back to top

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