Managing Digital Safeguarding Risks in Supported Living Services
Digital technology plays an expanding role in supported living, from communication and social connection to care coordination and monitoring. Within Digital Safeguarding, Online Risk & Technology-Enabled Harm, providers must ensure that technology enhances independence without exposing people to unmanaged risk. These considerations are closely linked to Digital Care Planning, where digital risk controls must be explicit and personalised.
This article examines how supported living services manage digital safeguarding risks in practice, with a focus on day-to-day delivery, governance and inspection readiness.
Why supported living presents distinct digital safeguarding challenges
Supported living places a strong emphasis on autonomy, choice and control. Digital access is often encouraged as part of independent living, but this can introduce risks that differ from more controlled environments.
Common challenges include:
- High levels of independent device use
- Reduced staff oversight of online activity
- Complex capacity and consent considerations
- Increased exposure to online relationships
Embedding digital risk within supported living assessments
Initial and ongoing assessments should explicitly address:
- Digital literacy and understanding of online risk
- Use of social media, messaging apps and online forums
- Financial management conducted online
- Use of location tracking or monitoring technology
This ensures staff have a shared understanding of digital safeguarding risks from the outset.
Operational example 1: Online exploitation through social platforms
Context: A supported living resident formed multiple online relationships through social media and messaging platforms.
Support approach: Staff identified patterns of financial requests and emotional manipulation during routine keyworker sessions.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Digital risk was added to the support plan, with agreed boundaries around financial discussions, regular check-ins, and safeguarding escalation routes. Privacy settings were reviewed with the individual.
How effectiveness is evidenced: Safeguarding logs showed reduced incidents, and the individual reported feeling more confident managing online relationships.
Commissioner expectation
Commissioners expect supported living providers to manage digital risk without undermining independence, demonstrating proportionate safeguards and clear escalation pathways.
Regulator / Inspector expectation
Inspectors expect providers to understand non-physical safeguarding risks, including those arising online, and to evidence staff competence in responding appropriately.
Balancing autonomy and protection
Supported living services must avoid overly restrictive approaches. Good practice involves:
- Co-producing digital risk controls with individuals
- Using positive risk-taking frameworks
- Recording rationale for decisions clearly
This balance is a key focus during inspection.
Operational example 2: Capacity and consent in digital decision-making
Context: A resident with fluctuating capacity used online marketplaces to make high-value purchases.
Support approach: Capacity was assessed specifically in relation to financial decisions made online.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Best-interest decisions were recorded when required, spending limits were agreed, and staff monitored changes without removing digital access entirely.
How effectiveness is evidenced: Governance audits showed defensible decision-making aligned with MCA principles.
Governance oversight of digital safeguarding
Providers should ensure:
- Digital safeguarding incidents are categorised and reviewed
- Patterns are identified through regular audits
- Learning informs staff training and policy updates
Operational example 3: Misuse of location tracking technology
Context: Family members requested continuous access to a resident’s location data.
Support approach: The provider reviewed consent, necessity and proportionality.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Access was limited, rationale recorded, and the resident supported to understand how data was used.
How effectiveness is evidenced: Inspection feedback highlighted clear governance and respect for privacy.
What good looks like
Effective digital safeguarding in supported living is proactive, person-centred and well-evidenced. Providers can demonstrate how digital risks are identified, managed and reviewed without eroding independence.