york-north-yorkshire-iaow

such as full details of current and previous offences and information from children’s social care services.However, overall we assessed that sufficient attention was paid to the protection of children and youngpeople in relation to the offender’s contact with any child or young person.There was clear evidence that key risk of harm information was shared between partnership agencies in the majority of cases and most cases that met the criteria for Multi-Agency Public ProtectionArrangements were correctly identified. Those cases requiring a higher level of Multi-Agency PublicProtection Arrangements involvement were well managed. Multi-agency work effectively contributed to themanagement of risk of harm. We also found that the Violent and Sexual Offenders Register, the informationsharing system linked to the management of violent and sex offenders, was used effectively in all relevantcases.Purposeful home visits are important for the management of offenders classified as high risk of harm, orwhere there are Child Protection concerns. We found that such home visits were carried out as a priorityat the start of the orders or at release on licence and repeated as required throughout the period ofsupervision.Risk of harm assessments and risk management plans were not always reviewed in a timely way after asignificant change in circumstances or factors relevant to the risk of harm to others. Some risk of harmassessment reviews contained insufficient analysis of the risk of harm posed by the individual.We found evidence both in the cases inspected and meetings with partner agencies that the Trust made astrong contribution at a strategic level to multi-agency work to protect the public. Partner organisations toldus that they valued highly the work of the Trust both at strategic and operational levels.Outcome 5: Delivering effective work for victimsOverall, 86% of work to deliver effective services to victims was done well enough.Assessment and planning to minimise risk of harm to others paid sufficient attention to safeguardingchildren and to actual and potential victims. The delivery of interventions to minimise risk of harm tovictims generally gave priority to victims’ safety and took account of concerns expressed by victims. A widerange of appropriate interventions was available.Victim contact work was undertaken appropriately, and the quality of work was good. Victims whoresponded to our questionnaire had very positive views about the work undertaken with them. Weunderstand that restorative justice is at an early stage of development and is seen as a priority. It had notbeen used in most of the cases we inspected.Please note – all names in the practice examples have been amended to protect individuals’ identities.RecommendationsPost-inspection improvement work should focus particularly on ensuring that:1. information is, in all cases, sought from children’s social care services to ensure work with individuals isbased on an awareness of all relevant Child Protection and safeguarding concerns2. plans to manage the risk of harm to others are timely, anticipate possible changes in risk of harmfactors, and include contingencies to address such changes. They are reviewed appropriately,particularly in response to significant changes. Service users are actively involved in all plans andarrangements to manage their own risk of harm3. work with individuals is reviewed to support progress, promote compliance and encourage desistance.4 Inspection of Adult Offending Work in York and North Yorkshire