Safeguarding adults and personal safety

The following indicators describe evidence that may show this expectation being met. They do not exclude other ways of achieving it.

• Safeguarding procedures and guidance are known and used by all staff, including on how to make the necessary referrals.
• All staff in contact with detainees are trained in the identification and care of vulnerable detainees.²⁰
• The facility promptly informs the Home Office of all detainees who may be vulnerable to harm in detention. The Home Office keeps facility staff informed about its assessment of risk to individual detainees.
• An individual care plan is in place to address a detainee’s assessed needs.
• The risks to all detainees are recognised and there are guidance and procedures to help reduce and prevent harm or abuse from occurring.
• When abuse of a detainee is alleged or suspected to have occurred, prompt and appropriate action is taken to protect the detainee and this is swiftly communicated to the Home Office.
• Staff are subject to recruitment and vetting procedures which comply with necessary legislation.

²⁰There is no universally agreed definition of vulnerability in detention. As Stephen Shaw’s 2016 report, Review into the Welfare in Detention of Vulnerable Persons: A Report to the Home Office (CM9186), points out, some commentators consider all of those in detention to be vulnerable because they are detained. Others prefer to describe groups that are in ‘situations of vulnerability’, as opposed to intrinsically vulnerable groups, thereby stressing the largely contextual nature of vulnerability. It is common for groups such as those with serious mental or physical health problems, children, elderly people, pregnant women, LGBTI people, people with disabilities, asylum-seekers, and those who have experienced torture, trafficking or gender-based violence, including female genital mutilation, to be considered especially at risk of harm or neglect in detention. In these Expectations, we use the terms ‘vulnerable’ and ‘vulnerability’ to refer to these groups, but also to any other individuals or groups who may be at risk of harm or neglect as a result of other personal, social and environmental factors; these factors may be fixed or change over time and the degree of vulnerability may change as a result.

The following indicators describe evidence that may show this expectation being met. They do not exclude other ways of achieving it.

• There is a clear strategy for preventing self-harm and suicide, which includes effective multidisciplinary procedures and care planning to help reduce risks.
• All staff are fully trained in suicide prevention.
• Rooms and toilets are free of ligature points as far as is practicable and suitable levels of supervision are in place.
• Detainees are monitored at high-risk times, such as when removal is imminent.
• Staff are alert to and take seriously the vulnerability of detainees who are not eating. Missed meals are monitored and detainees are given encouragement, care and support to resume eating.
• Staff routinely carry anti-ligature knives.
• Incidents of self-harm are closely monitored and analysed at regular intervals to establish any trends and to implement preventive measures. Serious incidents are properly investigated to establish what lessons can be learned and to promote good practice.

The following indicators describe evidence that may show this expectation being met. They do not exclude other ways of achieving it.

• Detainees are supervised and know how to summon help if necessary.
• Clear rules setting out expected standards of behaviour are published in the main languages of detainees and are readily available.
• Staff are alert to potential bullying and all forms of victimisation.
• Staff confront and challenge unacceptable behaviour.
• Detainees are protected from unwanted sexual attention.
• Female detainees are offered the option of a separate holding area.
• Separate, private accommodation is provided for women, with separate toilets, showers and washing facilities.
• Detainees are not allocated to shared accommodation until a room-sharing risk assessment has been carried out.

The following indicators describe evidence that may show this expectation being met. They do not exclude other ways of achieving it.

• Staff are trained in and routinely use de-escalation techniques.
• Restraints are only used as a last resort and for the shortest possible period.
• Planned use of force is properly authorised and video recorded. All staff involved in the use of force complete appropriate reports promptly and in detail.
• Detainees subject to control and restraint procedures are seen by a health care practitioner as soon as possible after restraint is removed.
• Use of force data are monitored and any emerging patterns are identified and acted on.
• Use of force documentation and associated CCTV or video footage is scrutinised by senior managers to identify opportunities for improvement and possible ill-treatment. Any concerns are investigated, lessons are learned and appropriate action is taken.
• There is effective oversight of use of force by the Home Office and Independent Monitoring Board.
• Detainees kept separate are in appropriate accommodation, and are monitored closely for their physical, emotional and mental well-being. Staff keep accurate records.