The Person Behind the File: training on care-experienced adultsThey were a child in care first.

Story. Dean, 23, is on a community order. His file runs to 40 pages: three missed appointments, two warnings and a note from induction that he was “evasive”. Nothing in it says he spent eight years in care, because nobody asked.

Theory. The definitions that decide entitlement. Care experienced means anyone who has been in care at any point. Care leaver is a legal status under the Children Act 1989, based on when and how long someone was looked after, and it brings leaving care support, including a personal adviser up to 25 if they want one. We then set out what the HMPPS Supporting Prisoners with Care Experience Policy Framework asks staff to do: identify care experience, record it with consent and, for people under 25, contact the local authority.

Action. Language that Cares. Staff read Dean’s record and mark what it says about him and what it leaves out. In pairs they practise asking about care in a first meeting, in plain words that do not make the person prove it, and agree how to record the answer with consent. They then rewrite one line of Dean’s record so it describes what happened without the label.

By the end of this part people can ask about care experience in a first meeting in a way that respects consent, and say whether the person is likely to be entitled to a personal adviser.

You leave with A short set of questions for asking about care experience, and a note on recording it with consent

Story. The same file, retold from Dean’s side. He went into care at 11 and moved nine times. Most moves started with a phone call or a letter he wasn’t expecting. At 18 his social worker changed, then his personal adviser, and he stopped answering numbers he didn’t know.

Theory. Bowlby’s attachment theory (1969): early relationships teach us whether adults will stay and can be trusted, and those expectations carry into adulthood. For someone whose adults kept leaving, ignoring a probation letter can be a way of not being let down again. We draw on our lived experience of care and professional experience of children’s services to show what that looks like from the inside.

Action. Rewind and Replay. Groups take one moment from Dean’s file, rewind it and replay it from his side: what he saw, what he expected and what the record said. They then do the same with a moment from a case of their own, without names, swap with a partner and replay each other’s moment.

By the end of this part people can describe a missed appointment or a sharp reply from the person’s side, and name the past experience that might sit behind it.

You leave with Dean’s story, and a replay of one moment from your own caseload, to hold in mind the next time a file reads like non-compliance

Story. Dean is called in to discuss a breach. He waits 40 minutes, then hears the word “warning” in the first sentence. He shouts and walks out, and later can’t remember what he was told.

Theory. Dan Siegel’s window of tolerance (1999): under threat, people tip into fight, flight or shutdown and can’t take in or remember information. People who grew up with unpredictable adults can tip faster and at smaller things. We look at why letters, long waits and fixed slots set some people up to fail before they reach the room.

Action. Window of Tolerance and Separating Reason from Behaviour. Staff list reactions they see every week, such as shouting, walking out or leaving post unopened, then map each one against what it may be protecting the person from, and mark what in their own process tips people out of the window. In pairs they practise the opening of Dean’s breach meeting so it starts with him, not the warning.

By the end of this part people can explain the window of tolerance in plain words, and read a missed appointment or hostile reply in a way that points to what to try next.

You leave with A way to read a missed appointment or a hostile reply that points to what to try next

Story. Shay, 22, arrives at the housing options desk with one bag. She left her flat after rent arrears and says she doesn’t need a social worker. She hasn’t seen her personal adviser in months and isn’t sure she still has one.

Theory. The Office for Health Improvement and Disparities’ working definition of trauma-informed practice (2022) sets out six principles: safety, trustworthiness, choice, collaboration, empowerment and cultural consideration. We turn them into front-desk practice, then cover the support around the person: the local offer, the leaving care team and, since 30 September 2026, the rule that care leavers under 25 cannot be found intentionally homeless.

Action. Groups bring a case from their own caseload, without names, and use the six principles as a checklist to plan changes: a text reminder, a plain-English letter, a named worker, a first call to the leaving care team with the person’s consent. Groups share their plans and test each one against the six principles. They finish by finding their own council’s local offer and leaving care contacts.

By the end of this part people can plan specific changes to appointments, letters and first conversations for one person on their caseload, and say when and how they will involve the personal adviser and leaving care team.

You leave with A checklist of changes and local contacts to use at your next appointment