Case management system for recognising risk in anti-social behaviour offences

The aims of the initiative are to:

• correctly identify risk on all ASB case reports 
• ensure each victim within the ASB case reports has had a risk assessment
• consider and assess the risk of perpetrators

The intended outcomes are to:

• improve the management of ASB incidents 
• improve the capture of any known risks related to ASB 

• capture any known risk related to ASB incidents
• reduce harm to those affected by ASB 

During the period from 1 March until 22 June 2018, there were 180 ASB reports sitting on Sentinel (force’s case management system) that had not been risk assessed.

Without assessing and considering risk, it is not possible to manage it appropriately. In response, the force implemented a three-stage plan to increase the use and quality of risk assessments. The plan was created by an ASB officer and sergeant and then disseminated through the force after approval was granted by chief officers. 

STORM and Sentinel

Not all reported incidents of ASB are inputted on Sentinel. If it is the first recorded incident of ASB and there are no other associated reports, the case will remain on the force’s command and control system, STORM. Within STORM, officers can complete a THRIVE risk assessment, which is different to the risk assessment on Sentinel. The incident can be tagged with an ASB code, which is part of the Home Office recording standard. This allows the force to monitor and capture incidents of ASB.

Within Sentinel, officers can take a more detailed look into the risk after the initial THRIVE approach is captured within STORM. Officers are provided with guidance on when to capture incidents of ASB on Sentinel to allow further investigation, which requests that all personal, environmental and nuisance incidents are captured.

Recognising when a ASB incident should be case managed

On Sentinel, officers can complete a risk matrix to assess the risk for ASB cases. In December 2020, the acronym VICTOR-E was implemented to aid and support officers in recognising when a ASB incident should be case managed. On attending incidents of crime and ASB or standalone ASB, officers identify whether the incident or incidents have caused harassment, alarm, or distress, in addition to any one of the following:

• V – vulnerable
• I – impact
• C – combined approach
• T – targeted
• O – ongoing
• R – risk
• E – engage

The use of the acronym has been authorised by an inspector. The acronym provides officers confidence of when and how to log incidents of ASB. 

Overview of high risk cases

The force’s procedure for high-risk cases is to: 

• inform the sergeant and neighbourhood area inspector of the area where the incident took place
• create a history marker for STORM. If a case is deemed high risk, a marker is placed on the person or location. The marker will make force control room staff aware the person or location is high risk and the associated Sentinel record. This enables a timely response. 

Afterwards, the neighbourhood team creates an action plan to review the case and ensure the risk is mitigated. This can be done by contacting partner agencies where appropriate, such as local authorities, youth justice, or housing.

Stage one minimum standard risk assessment – 2018

In June 2018, victim risk assessments were made compulsory. Each victim had an individual matrix, even if they were part of the same household. A risk assessment was also added to Sentinel for cases where there are no victims. The assessment looks at the frequency of ASB, the impact on person, their vulnerabilities, if there was any support or interventions already in place, and if there was any person or location being targeted.

Every ASB report has a potential risk and the force aimed to identify the following:

• the risk of the ASB escalating
• the risk to the people using the area and living in the surrounding area
• the risk of the ASB that has occurred

Stage two focus on vulnerability, repeat and safeguarding of victims – 2020

The following additional questions were added to the risk assessment:

• is this person a repeat victim?
• is this person vulnerable?

The options were yes, no, or unknown, with a free text field to explain further should the answer be yes.

An ASB case review found a case where the vulnerability question was left by the lead officer as “unknown”. The review concluded this could not happen again and that all risk elements should be completed. This is so that all factors were taken into consideration, any risks were mitigated, and appropriate support could be offered. Therefore, a change to the case management system was suggested. If “unknown” was chosen on either question, a trigger email would be sent to the lead officer four days after creation, followed by seven days, ten days, fourteen days, and then weekly emails until the answer was provided.

The system also made the free text field compulsory if the lead officer had stated that the person was a vulnerable, or if they were a repeat victim, to require them to outline further detail. 

It was also suggested that a question regarding safeguarding concerns should also be added. If the officer selected yes, the system would prompt them to complete a full safeguarding referral form.

Stage 3 broadening risk assessments to include perpetrators and locations – 2021/22

In June 2021, the police force, along with partner agencies created an area on Sentinel that revealed the following risk areas:

• the people involved in each case
• what role they have, such as victim, perpetrator or witness 
• whether theirs risk is either low, medium or high
• if they have safeguarding needs, are repeat victim or have vulnerabilities

This enables the force to see in a snapshot who they are supporting and the associated risks. It has also been identified that all individuals feel risk differently, there may be different factors, such as vulnerability, that can affect an individual’s risk matrix. 

During stage three, it was also identified that perpetrators need to be considered on the risk matrix scale. Perpetrators may be escalating in their offending, or they may have safeguarding concerns that put them at increased risk of re-offending. The following question were added:

• what was the frequency of offending?
• what is the impact on the person?
• do they have vulnerabilities, any support or interventions already in place?
• whether a person or location is being targeted?

Task and finish group

A task and finish group was set up at the beginning of the project between the police, local authority and housing authorities, and the force’s Sentinel governance officer. The purpose of the group was to review the current risk guidance and adapt it to cover all three stages. This appeared to be the simplest way to implement the process and reduce errors by having multiple ways to review risk, simplify the delivering and training. This saved time across all partner platforms. 

Promotion and cost

The changes that were made to Sentinel came to no cost, other than the time of the officers and the local authority to decide on wording, terminology, and implementation.

The police, ASB team, and the technical designer for the force have created a short video explaining the changes that were being made and how the new risk process will be disseminated. This video was posted and advertised on police internal systems and shared in briefings. An aide memoire about when the risk assessments are required to be done for locations was provided at the end of the video. The video and aide memoire remain as a resource on the internal ASB Page. 

During 2017, Leicestershire had 358 cases out of 4382 cases that had no risk assessment. Since the risk assessments have been made compulsory, the average number of cases missing a risk assessment at any given time is now 12.4. All cases with missing risk assessments are highlighted during weekly compliance checks and are required to be rectified. 

Identifying risk, alongside vulnerabilities, repeat victimisation and any safeguarding concerns for victims has enabled the force to respond quickly to the needs of the victim. If victims are identified as being high risk, a proactive approach is taken with partner agencies, sending through the most appropriate referrals, and mitigating risk at the earliest opportunity.

In addition, identifying the risk associated with perpetrators has enabled the force to consider the needs of the perpetrator and consider referrals. This enables the most appropriate support to be delivered and aid in reducing offending. 

As the case management system form is not mandatory to complete, the force emphasised the importance of reviewing and risk assessing to officers, to increase compliance. This was done through communications, support from senior officers, and reminders through videos, emails, and briefings.