Pillar 2

Why is this important? 

A person-centred approach is fundamental to the delivery of high-quality aftercare services that support recovery and independence. It recognises that everyone is unique, with their own strengths, needs, and aspirations, with a need to avoid any model driven by financial constraints which could inhibit the delivery of strengths-based aftercare assessments and creative support planning.

While Section 117 aftercare has a distinct statutory basis, purpose and funding route, the approach to assessment, relationship-based practice and support planning should be consistent with good social work and multidisciplinary practice more broadly. Section 117 aftercare planning should be integrated into holistic care and support planning, rather than treated as a parallel or detached process.

However, this does not mean that Section 117 aftercare needs can be assessed or determined through a Care Act needs assessment, nor that Care Act eligibility criteria apply. Section 117 aftercare requires a distinct consideration of mental health–related aftercare needs arising from qualifying detention, assessed and recorded within an Section 117-specific framework, even where the same practitioners and relationships are involved.

In practice, Section 117 aftercare planning and review should be coordinated within relevant multidisciplinary care planning frameworks used by health and social care partners. This may include, for example, Care Programme Approach (CPA) arrangements or their successors, such as the Community Mental Health Framework for adults and older adults.

These frameworks support coordinated, multi-agency planning and review, but do not replace or override the distinct statutory duties and responsibilities associated with Section 117 aftercare.

What does good look like?  

Person centred, and strengths-based aftercare would be characterised by:

Co-production: People and their carers are treated as equal partners in the assessment and support planning process. Their knowledge and experience are recognised as invaluable in developing, delivering and reviewing a plan that is meaningful and effective. This includes access to advocacy as appropriate. 

Strengths-based and needs-led planning: The planning process should identify and respond to unmet needs alongside the person’s strengths, assets and aspirations. A strengths-based approach should support recovery, autonomy and hope, but must not be used as a substitute for a thorough needs-led assessment, nor to limit or ration access to statutory services, including Section 117 aftercare.

Given the level of complexity and risk often present in Section 117 aftercare, staff should be appropriately trained and supported to apply strengths-based approaches proportionately and safely. This includes recognising where significant need is present, understanding the limitations of strengths-based practice in such circumstances, and actively mitigating the risk of unmet need being overlooked or minimised.

A balanced approach is required, in which strengths and assets are used to inform personalised support planning, alongside clear professional judgement about the nature, extent and urgency of aftercare needs.

Holistic perspective: Aftercare planning takes a holistic view of the persons life, considering their physical and mental health, social and emotional wellbeing, sensory needs, and their housing, employment, and financial circumstances. This is achieved through effective multi-disciplinary approach, with input from a range of professionals.

Recovery-oriented: The goal of aftercare is to prevent deterioration and readmission to hospital, and to support the person’s recovery, wellbeing and ability to live a meaningful and self-determined life. This includes supporting social recovery, such as increased autonomy, independence, participation in community life and achievement of personal goals.

The support plan should be designed to help the person achieve their individual outcomes and aspirations, and planning should begin at the point of admission.

Crisis, relapse and contingency planning: Explicit consideration is given to strategies and support in the event of a crisis or relapse which is clearly documented.

Practical considerations

• Training and development: Are all staff involved in the commissioning, arrangement and delivery of aftercare receiving regular training in person-centred planning and strengths-based approaches to ensure that they have the skills and knowledge to work in a way that is empowering and collaborative. This training must include critical evaluation of these approaches and their implementation to support their appropriate and proportionate application in practice.
• Co-production at service and system level: How are you embedding co-production in the aftercare planning process, this could include the use of peer support workers, co-produced assessment tools, and regular feedback mechanisms?
• Flexible and creative commissioning: Are local commissioning arrangements flexible enough to allow for creative and personalised support packages that are tailored to peoples individual needs. This may involve commissioning services from a range of providers, including the voluntary and community sector?
• Valuing carers: How is the role of family and carers being actively considered and involved in the aftercare planning process, including their own assessment of need and support?